History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.45
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.45
- Language
- English
v4.c62.45.1
The *Ruler*—The necessity of a ruler is forcibly emphasized in several works. The Ait. Br. I. 14 says that the gods thought they were worsted because they had no king, that therefore they elected one by consent. This shows that military necessities led to kingship. Manu VII. 3 ( = Śukranītisāra I. 71 ) says ' the Creator created the king for the protection of all this world when everything ran through fear hither and thither, as there was then no ruler in the world '. It goes on to say that the Creator proceeded to create Daṇḍa ( the power of punishment ) for the sake of the king and that if the king does not sedulously employ daṇḍa for punishing those that deserve it, the strong would torment the weak as fish are fried on a pike or as in water fish devour each other ( Manu VII. 14 and 20, the last also showing a variant ' jale ' for ' śūle ' ). This idea of *mātsyanyāya* ( the maxim of the larger fish devouring the smaller ones or the strong despoiling the weak ) is frequently dwelt upon by Kauṭilya, the Mahābhārata and other works. It can be traced back to the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa XI. 1. 6. 24 ' whenever there is drought, then the stronger seizes upon the weaker, for the waters are the law ', which appears to mean that when there is no rain, the reign of law comes to an end and *mātsyanyāya* begins to operate.
v4.c62.45.2
Kauṭilya says ' if daṇḍa be not employed, it gives rise to the condition of *mātsyanyāya*, since in the absence of a chastiser the strong devour the weak ' and ' the people overwhelmed by the operation of mātsyanyāya made Manu Vaivasvata their king. ' ²² That in the absence of a king ( *arājaka* ) or when there is no fear of punishment, the condition of *mātsyanyāya* follows is declared by several works such as the Rāmāyaṇa II. chap. 67, Śāntiparva 15. 30 and 67. 16, Kāmandaka II. 40, Matsyapurāṇa 225. 9, Mānasollāsa II. 20 verse 1295. Numerous works contain eulogies of daṇḍa. The king is called daṇḍadhara in many works e. g. in Śāntiparva 67. 16 and Kām. I. 1. Gautama XI. 28 says that the word daṇḍa is derived by the wise from the root ' dam ' ( to control ), that he ( the king ) should control by means of daṇḍa those who observe no restraint and ( XI. 31 ) that the instructions of the teacher and the power of punishment (wielded by the king) guard those who violate the rules of varṇas and āśramas. The Matsyapurāṇa ²³ 225. 17, Aginpurāṇa 226. 16 and Śāntiparva 15. 8 state that daṇḍa is so called because it suppresses those that are not restrained (from the root ‘dam’) and punishes those that are imprudent or ungentlemanlike (from the root ‘daṇḍ’). Daṇḍa is raised to the position of a divinity by Manu²⁴ VII. 25 (= Viṣṇudharma_sūtra III. 95 = Matsya 225. 8), Yāj. I. 354, Śānti 121. 15.
v4.c62.45.3
Daṇḍa rules over all people, it protects all of them, daṇḍa is awake even when (the guardians of law) have gone to sleep, the wise regard daṇḍa as dharma (Manu VII. 18 = Śānti 15. 2 = Matsya 225. 14–15). The whole world is under the heel of daṇḍa, for it is difficult to find a man who is pure by nature (Manu VII. 22 = Śānti 15. 34). The conception of daṇḍa is therefore this that the State's will and coercive power keep the individual and nation within the bounds of dharma, punish for breaches and effect the good of the whole. The gods, *dānavas*, gandharvas, the rākṣasas and reptiles—these also tend to bring about enjoyment for men because they are pressed down by daṇḍa (Manu VII. 23).²⁵ The Bhagavadgītā (X. 38) identifies daṇḍa with the divine Kṛṣṇa ‘I am daṇḍa in the hands of those who control others, I am *nīti* (i. e. rājanīti) for the conquerors’. For the detailed effects and long eulogies of daṇḍa, vide Manu VII. 14–31, Matsya 225. 4–17, Kāmandaka II. 38–44. These eulogies of daṇḍa presuppose the theory that people obey law and the dictates of the śāstra through the fear of force or punishment. Daṇḍa should be neither too severe nor too mild, but should be appropriate to the fault committed (Kauṭ. I. 4, Kāmandaka II. 37, Manu VII. 16, Śānti 15. 1ff, Śānti 56. 21, 103. 34). Śānti 57.
v4.c62.45.4
41 advises that one should first secure a king, then wife and then wealth, for in the absence of the ruler there would be no wife nor private property.²⁶ This shows that the institutions of family and private property and the protection of the weak are bound up with the existence of a ruler. Kātyāyana (in Rāja N. P. p. 30) says the king is the protector of the helpless, the home of the homeless, the son of the sonless and the father of the fatherless.