History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.25

v1.c6.s14.25

It would be interesting to say a few words separately on the chapter about judicial administration. Dr. Jolly has collected together the passages of the Kauṭilīya on judicial administration that bear a very close resemblance to the several works on ancient Indian Law (vide Z. D. M. G. vol. 67, pp. 51-90). It will be seen therefrom that there is the greatest correspondence between the Kauṭilīya and Yājñavalkya. It is no doubt true that many passages from Manu and Nārada agree closely with those of the Kauṭilīya but not to the same extent as those of Yājñavalkya. A few striking examples are quoted below.¹⁶⁹ The question then arises whether there is borrowing and if so who the borrower is. The agreement in phraseology is so close that it must be regarded as a case of borrowing and in my opinion it is the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that borrows. The reasons are many. Yājñavalkya represents on numerous points of law a very great advance upon the doctrines of Kauṭilya. Kauṭilya does not contain distinct directions upon the four stages of a law suit (plaint, reply, proof and judgment) nor upon the threefold aspects of proof (documents, witnesses, prescription). Yājñavalkya goes into all these matters. The Kauṭilīya does not recognise the widow or mother as heir to a sonless man; Yājñavalkya does so. Kauṭilya does not mention the *bandhus* as heirs; he hardly says anything about re-union.¹⁷⁰ The Kauṭilīya divides the strīdhana of a woman dying during her husband's lifetime among her sons and daughters, while Yāj. prefers the daughters to the sons.¹⁷¹ It is not necessary to multiply examples. It goes without saying that Yājñavalkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than the Kauṭilīya and so must be later than the latter by several centuries. The Kauṭilīya agrees very closely with Manu also, but considerations of space prevent me from going into the points of agreement. There are however numerous fundamental points on which Manu and the Kauṭilīya disagree.