History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c24.s1.375

v2.c24.s1.375

It would be interesting to see how far corporal punishment of pupils was allowed in ancient India. Gaut.⁸⁸⁴ (II. 48-50) lays down that pupils are to be regulated (ordinarily) without beating; but if it is not possible to control the pupil (by words &c.) then he may be struck with a slender rope or with a split bamboo; that if the teacher struck (the pupil) in any other way (e. g. with the hand &c.) the teacher should be punished by the king. The Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 8. 29-30 calls upon the teacher to censure (by words) a pupil when he commits a fault and to employ according to the gravity of the offence any one or more of the following punishments till the pupil desists, viz. threatening (the pupil), refusing to give him food, drenching him in cold water and not allowing him to come in his presence.⁸⁸⁵ The Mahābhāṣya⁸⁸⁶ (vol. I. p. 41) refers to the fact that when a pupil pronounced a wrong accent (e. g. anudātta in place of udātta) the upādhyāya slapped him (on the back probably). Manu VIII. 299-300, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 71. 81-82, Nārada (abhyupetyā-śuśrūṣā, verses 13-14) follow Gautama as to corporal punishment, but add that beating should be on the back only and never on the head nor on the chest, while Nārada further rules that the beating should not be excessive. Manu (VIII. 300) says that the punishment in case of violation of these rules by the teacher is that for a thief and (VIII. 299) extends the same rules to the son and the wife. Manu II. 159 recommends that in imparting instruction about the right path of conduct, one should use sweet persuasive (not high-toned) words.