[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Hindu Administrative Institutions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929) › c6.s2 # Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s2: Sec. iii. The Concept of Matsya Nyāya Hindu Administrative Institutions c6.s2 - **Language:** English ### Sec. iii. The Concept of Matsya Nyāya ### [c6.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.1) Reference has already been made to the \*mātsya nyāya\* theory. The guiding principle of this theory is ‘might is right’. Literally rendered the term \*mātsya nyāya\* means the ‘logic of the fish’, in other words, the law of the greater fish devouring the smaller ones. This supplies the explanation of the Hindu concept of the state of nature. According to orthodox tradition as expounded in the \*Arthaśāstra\* and the \*Itihāsas\* the original state of nature was one of ideal bliss when people naturally led a moral life perhaps born of regard for humanity in general. They were not bound down by laws or conventions and systems. This state of innocence, however, in course of time gave place to a period of insecurity and even savagery when chaos and anarchy reigned supreme. Might was the order of the day. People had no regard for human and divine order. The very social existence (\*sthiti\*) was made impossible. It was felt that over the whole world were spread the wings of destruction, and the day seemed not far off when it would reach its end. On this the Lord, the Creator, out of his abundant love to mankind, set up spiritual and moral standards which were named \*daṇḍa nīti\*. Any violation of such standards was severely dealt with by the authority in power (\*imperium\*), and this authority was invariably the king. Out of fear of \*daṇḍa\* people began to lead a moral and even a spiritually good life. As Kauṭalya acutely remarks, protected by \*daṇḍa\* the state prospers.¹ ### [c6.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.2) ¹ Bk. I, sec. iv. ### [c6.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.3) This peculiar state of nature is also described as \*arājaka\* in the \*Śānti Parvan\* of the \*Mahābhārata\*. \*Arājaka\* simply means a state with no government. According to the then prevalent standards, government was indispensable for a state. ‘No government, no state,’ is the principle underlying the \*Rāja Dharma\* section of the \*Mahābhārata\*. \*Arājaka\* is a state of anarchy as is explained in chapters lxvi and lxvii of the \*Śānti Parvan\*. It will not be out of place to summarize these here. ### [c6.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.4) Unprotected by an authority the state becomes subject to plunder and devastation by marauders; people devour one another. Life becomes unsafe. A person cannot enjoy the possession of his person and property. The wicked rob the weak and the innocent of their wealth, and themselves also suffer in their turn. Women are forced to give up their chastity. The atmosphere is pervaded by an all-round darkness. Like fishes in a small pool of water, and like birds in the toils of hunters, people injure and kill one another. People in a state of anarchy are compared to a herd of cows without a cowherd, and hence confront insurmountable difficulties in the maintenance of their family and property. The spiritually-minded are often thrown into the jaws of death. No regard is shown to parents, the aged, the \*ācārya\*, or the guests. The rich every day are murdered or put in chains. Women themselves become loose in morals. Agriculture, trade or commerce, does not thrive. The Vedas begin to disappear and the performance of sacrifices (\*yajñas\*) ceases. There are no regular marriages, nor well-conducted assemblies. Unrighteousness and injustice prevail. There is an intermixture of castes, and religious authority is openly defied. No one sleeps without fear, and famine stalks naked.’ ### [c6.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.5) As in the \*Mahābhārata\* so also in the \*Manusmṛti\* the word ‘\*arājaka\*’ equates with \*mātsya nyāya\*.¹ The conception of the law-giver is that in states where government ceases to be, all people live in perpetual dread. In the absence of \*daṇḍa\* or \*daṇḍadhara\* the strong would devour the weak as the spike, the fishes.² ### [c6.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.6) ¹ Cf. Manu, chap. vii. 21. ### [c6.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.7) ¹ अराजके हि लोकेऽस्मिन् सर्वतो विद्रुते भयात् । (vii. 3.) ### [c6.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.8) ² शूले मत्स्यानिवाभक्ष्यन् दुर्बलान् बलवत्तराः । (vii. 20.) ### [c6.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.9) This text is as corrected by the celebrated commentators like Medhātithi and Gōvindarāja. But Kullūka Bhaṭṭa gives another reading in this context. ### [c6.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.10) जलेमत्स्यानिवाहिंस्युः दुर्बलान् बलवत्तराः । ### [c6.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.11) This indicates the traditional feeling of \*mātsya nyāya\* and hence may be usefully adopted as the more correct view. It is interesting to recall here that the same line occurs in the \*Yuktikalpa-taru\*.³ There is also another reading of the line in the \*Śānti Parvan\* of the \*Mahābhārata\* with a slight difference.⁴ This idea again of smaller fish being devoured by the larger ones is also found mentioned in the legend of the fish narrated by Mārkaṇḍeya in the \*Vana Parvan\* of the \*Mahābhārata\*.⁵ ### [c6.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.12) ³ शूलेमत्स्यानिवाभक्ष्यन् दुर्बलान् बलवत्तराः । (105.) ### [c6.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.13) ⁴ जलेमत्स्यानिवाभक्ष्यन् दुर्बलं बलवत्तराः । (66. 16.) ### [c6.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.14) ⁵ Chap. cxc. 7-9. ### [c6.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.15) The state of \*arājaka\* is elaborately described in chapter lxvii of the \*Ayodhya Kāṇḍa\* of the \*Rāmāyaṇa\*. ‘It is the prime cause of all ruin to the state. There will be no seasonal rain, no fruitful crops, no obedient son or wife, no private property, no truth, no assembly, no beautiful parks or sacred places of pilgrimage, no performance of \*yajñas\*, no theatrical amusements, no festivals or festivities, no learned lawyers, no pleasure-drive with family in swift going vehicles, no peace, no sleep for the rich even with doors shut, no learning or practice of arms, no caravan traders, no self-controlled men enjoying solitude and bliss, no yogakshema (obtaining that which could not be got and protecting what has been acquired, according to Govindarāja), no army conquering hostile enemies, no temple-worship, and no enjoyments of any sort. The kingdom without a king resembles a river without water, a forest without pasture and cattle without a cow-herd. In such a territory nothing is one’s own. The people swallow one another like fishes.¹ Thus both the epics and the Dharmaśāstras like Manu, and the Purāṇas like the Mātsyapurāṇa are quite at one as regards the nature of an arājaka territory. That this notion continued to prevail even centuries after is demonstrated from the election to the throne of Gopāla of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal. It is said that the people elected Gopāla to free themselves from a state of anarchy, or mātsya nyāya. This Gopāla was the father of Dharmapāla who lived in the ninth century A.D.² ### [c6.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.16) ¹ Chap. lxvii, śl. 8-31. Cf. Mātsyapurāṇa, chap. ccxxv, v. 9. ### [c6.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.17) ² Khālīmpur Grant of Dharmapāla, Epigraphica Indica, vol. iv, p. 248. The name Dharmapāla instead of Gopāla is wrongly given in some recent publications. ### [c6.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.18) There is again reference to this concept, of mātsya nyāya in Raghunātha’s Laukika-Nyāya-Saṅgraha (a work attributed to the fifteenth century A.D.). Raghunātha explains this as occurring frequently in the Purāṇa and in the Itihāsa literature and quotes Vasiṣṭha in the course of Prahlādākhyāna.³ ### [c6.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.19) ³ एतावताऽथकालेन तद्रसातल मण्डलं । बभूऽऽराजकं तोक्ष्णं मात्स्यन्यायकदभितम् ॥ इति (The Pandit Series, 1901, p. 122.) ### [c6.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.20) This state of anarchy presupposes a state of nature where one finds perpetual conflict between strong and weak individuals in a group with the result that the weak are defeated and subjugated by the strong. This then indicates what we to-day understand by the terms, the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. This is surely the individualistic theory with a vengeance. People of sanity grew sick of this state of affairs and desired peace. Necessity for a powerful hand to dominate the people was badly felt, and the result was the code of laws which goes by the general term, \*daṇḍa nīti\*, the guiding feature of which is the institution of kingship.¹ ### [c6.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.21) ¹ Scholars are not quite agreed as to the interpretation of the term \*arājaka\*. Mr. Jayaswal thinks that the \*arājaka\* or non-ruled state was a living institution which had been tried as a constitutional experiment more than once in ancient times. The learned scholar places above others the Jaina \*sūtras\* as his authority in this particular. (\*Āyāramgasuttam\*, vol.ii, 3, 1-10, edited by Jacobi, Hindu Polity, pt. i. p. 99.) The Jaina \*sūtra\* cited gives six forms of state : ‘non-ruled’ (\*arājaka\*) states, \*gaṇa-ruled\*, \*yuvarāja-ruled\*, two-ruled, \*vairājya\*, and party-ruled state. Jayaswal goes the length of interpreting the term \*arājaka\* in the \*Śānti Parvan\*, chap. lviii, to which we have made pointed reference, as the state of law when people lived by mutual agreement or social contract. No doubt the \*Śānti Parvan\* speaks of a democratic form of Government in which law or \*dharma\* was the uncrowned ruler when people never dared to transgress its precepts; but whether this state is what the \*Mahābhārata\* calls as an \*arājaka\* state, one can hardly say with any confidence. There were in vogue in ancient india democratic and republican forms of constitution. They may have been of the nature of experiments, though not actually so intended. They failed apparently to meet the needs of the times. Hence the people obviously needed a powerful and a selfless authority to meet the situation with a firm hand. Consequently the people learned to prefer a monarch. ### [c6.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.22) Jayaswal’s interpretation of the term \*arājaka\* seems unacceptable and we are inclined to take it, on the explicit authority of the \*Rāmāyaṇa\*, that the ‘\*arājaka\*’ state meant a state in \*mātsya nyāya\* or anarchy. Rather the \*mātsya nyāya\* was one form of ‘\*arājaka\*’ which inspired people with fear of its consequences. Peculiar doctrines have been prevalent in every kind of constitution, and in the \*arājaka\* state the ‘doctrine of fish’ alone gained more currency than any other. Undoubtedly then both ‘\*arājaka\*’ and \*mātsya nyāya\* theories point to anarchical forms of the state. A close study of the various texts gives indication of the fact of the historical or evolutionary development of the state government. To use modern political terms, the original state was one of democracy of the ideal type. This led directly or indirectly to a stage of anarchy, confusion, and blood-shed. Consequently the purest democratic form was deemed ill-adapted as a working principle and gradually given up. Soon definite laws were established and kingship was made a living institution, and this king was not an absolute uncontrolled autocrat, but he was what we understand to-day by the term a constitutional monarch. ### [c6.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.23) This institution can be traced in Vedic literature wherein are found many references to monarchical forms of government, where the king could do wrong and where he was under the control of the people or law. Law was above the king and it was eternal (\*sanātana\*). But this characteristic of law must be understood in a qualified sense; for though law remains the same in principle, still a gradual evolution in practical application, according to the changing needs of the times, worked itself out. \*Śiṣṭācāra\* (the practice of the learned) warranted such an alteration, which the needs of the time actually brought about. The law was purely customary and hence the state had little to do with legislation. What the remarkable historian Grote said of Zeus would equally apply to our ancient Indian King, ‘He was not a lawmaker but a Judge.’ Thus was introduced a form of constitutional monarchy with healthy limitations which had a telling effect on the constitution, first, by upholding the rights of the people (which is democracy), and secondly, by enforcing duties on the authority, that is the monarch. Thus it was a mixed constitution in which both the democratic and monarchic principles found recognition, and in which both were interdependent. ### [c6.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.24) What were the ends that the ancients sought to attain by propounding a mixed constitution like this? It was already shown that general principles of law were formulated beforehand and were taken for granted as established; and hence the rule of the king was to be the rule of the law and the government of law. But this law was not of the universal and comprehensive type. It was law in the sense that it provided certain recognized regulations for the maintenance of order in society. Any law presupposes a community of people or society. In this context we must not confound state with society or society with state. Both society and state were separate entities, and independent organisms.¹ Each of these had its own sphere of functioning and activity, its own structure and growth. The state did not always interfere with the social activities and organizations. But this was not absolute non-interference. The state certainly interfered with society whenever and wherever it was necessary. The policy of the state was, in other words, individualistic in character. That means the sphere of governmental activity was limited to a considerable extent. ### [c6.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.25) ¹ R. K. Mookerjee, \*Local Government in Ancient India\*, intro., p. xv. ### [c6.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.26) Professor Gilchrist summarizes the functions of government according to this individualistic theory. ### [c6.s2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.27) 1. Protection of the state and individuals from foreign aggression. 2. Protection of individuals against each other, i.e. from physical injury, slander, personal restraint. 3. Protection of property from robbery and damage. 4. Protection against false contract or breach of contract. 5. Protection of the unfit. 6. Protection of individuals from preventible evils, such as plague or malaria. ### [c6.s2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.28) This was, in short, protection of life and property of the citizens by the state. In return for this function by the state people paid taxes and revenue. The state in ancient India according to the available sources of information, can be said to have rested on an individualistic basis, individualistic in the sense that the individual strove for the attainment of his ultimate aim, namely, the salvation of his soul. Society, as conceived by the ancient Hindus, existed for the promotion of this aim of the individual, and the individual did not exist for the society as was the case in the early History of Greece. Maine says, ‘ Society in primitive times was not what it is assumed to be at present, a collection of individuals. In fact and in the view of the men who composed it, it was an aggregation of families. The contrasts may be most forcibly expressed by saying that the unit of an ancient society was the family, of a modern society, the individual.’¹ Society thus realized pales into insignificance before the state. State-control of social organization is to-day rapidly dethroning society as a separate entity, the latter being slowly but surely merged in the more powerful organization of the state. This conception was foreign to the genius of the Hindus. The ancient Hindus evolved distinct organizations of their own, both political and social, each functioning in its limited sphere of action. In this structure of society the individual was a member of the group, and was in the group. As a member he was to partake of the nature and the character of the group whatever it be; and by virtue of his position in the group he was guided by the policy of common will and common interest. He was free to express his own ideas on the question or questions engaging the serious consideration of that group, but he must subordinate his opinion to the common opinion. It was what is called the ‘sacrifice’ of the individual to the state. This group-feeling is the chief support for the power of the state, says Bertrand Russel¹ and makes the further remark, ‘almost every man finds it essential to his happiness to feel himself a member of a group, animated by common friendship and enmities, and banded together for defensive attack.’ ### [c6.s2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.29) ¹ Ancient Law, p. 104. ### [c6.s2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2.30) ¹ Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp. 52, 53. ## Linked texts (8) - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.7.21) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.1.4) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Matsyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.matsya) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.vasistha) — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Purāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana) — Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Laukikanyāyasaṃgraha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.visistadvaita.later.laukikanyayasamgraha) — Raghunātha Varman 1825, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1929.c6.s2) · Pramāṇa