A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s1.3

c12.s1.3

Before taking up the theories of these authors relating to the king and his subjects, let us consider briefly Medhātithi's treatment of the allied, if not identical, concepts of rājadharma and daṇḍanīti. To understand this point, it is necessary to remember that much as some authorities (especially the Śāntiparvan) expressly declare some branches of the rājadharma to be based not upon the Vedas but upon reason and experience,∗ the association of this concept with the great doctrine of varṇāśramadharma would of itself suggest its descent from the Vedas which form the primary source of the dharma. We must further observe in this connection that Manu (VII 43) applies the epithet eternal (*śāśvatī*) which is usually reserved for the Vedas alone to the science of Daṇḍanīti, while the Śāntiparvan (ch. LIX) ascribes its creation to the god Brahmā. Medhātithi takes up an attitude that is opposed to these tendencies. Commenting on the opening verse of Manu's seventh chapter he writes, “Here indeed the duties having other authorities (than the Vedas) for their source are explained. All duties have not the Vedas as their source. With regard to duties having other sources, what is not inconsistent with the sacred canon is explained.” Again, while expounding the verse in which Daṇḍanīti is characterised as above, Medhātithi explains away the term ‘eternal’ by calling it a mere eulogy. In the above extracts, it will be observed, the author's meaning is expressed in a negative fashion. We may perhaps put it positively by saying that rājadharma is based, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the canon, upon the lessons of reason and experience, and that ‘daṇḍanīti’ is a science of historical origin.