History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.544

v4.c62.544

Therefore what the king was to do was to see that the dharmas of *varṇa* and *āśrama* were observed by the people and if they swerved from them to bring them back by punishments. Śukra IV. 4. 39 says that each caste was to observe the rules of the caste handed down from generation to generation and that if its members behaved otherwise they were liable to be punished by the king. The principal works emphasize that each individual in the State should fulfil his own duties (*svadharma*) as belonging to a particular class (*varṇa*) or a particular stage of life (*āśrama*) or his own duties due to the position he occupies and those known as sāmānya dharma such as *ahiṁsā*, truthfulness &c. (for which see H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 10-11) and that the purpose of the State was to enable him to do so and to prevent others from interfering with him. All this laid undue emphasis on the preservation of the *status quo*, on current beliefs and practices as the ideal. The writers do not emphasize that each individual must actively pursue the good of the society as a whole. As the final goal was *mokṣa*, undue emphasis was laid on other-worldliness, on individual attainment and on detachment and running away from ordinary worldly affairs. The goal of the State was deemed to be to enable men to attain the four *puruṣārthas*, particularly the first three (as the last viz. *mokṣa* depended only upon individual philosophical insight and mystical experience and was attainable only by a microscopic number). Even the Bārhaspatya-sūtra³¹⁹ (II. 43) says that the fruit of polity was the attainment of dharma, artha and kāma. Somadeva begins his Nītivākyāmṛta in a characteristic way when he performs obeisance to *rājya* (the State) that yields the three fruits of dharma, artha and kāma.³²⁰ Kām.³²¹ IV. 77 winds up his discussion of the seven elements of rājya with the declaration that the entire State depends for its highest stability on wealth and the army and that the State when handled by a sagacious minister results in securing the three goals. Kauṭilya³²² (in I. 7) first advises people not to eschew pleasures altogether, but to enjoy pleasures in such a way as not to conflict with the requirements of dharma and artha, and adds that a man may enjoy in an equal degree the three goals of life that are dependent on each other, since any one of the three if pursued to excess harms not only the other two but also itself. The Dharmaśāstra authors held that Dharma was the supreme power in the State and was above the king, who was only the instrument to realize the goal of dharma. To these authors the State was not an end in itself but only a means to an end. Kauṭilya, true to his position as a writer on arthaśāstra, finally states his opinion that *artha* is the chief among the three goals, as the other two depend upon wealth for their realization. With this statement of Kauṭilya, one of the most renowned figures of Indian antiquity, this section on rājadharma may be appropriately brought to a close.