History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.540
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.540
- Language
- English
v4.c63.540.1
The idea of the liability to pay off one's debts was developed in India in the most ancient times. In Ṛg. VIII. 47. 17⁶⁶⁶ the poet exclaims 'Let us drive away the evil effects of bad dreams as we pay off debts'. In Ṛg. X. 34. 10 (the gambler's lament) it is stated that the gambler, because he owes a (gambling) debt, is afraid and approaches the houses of others at night, desiring wealth'.⁶⁶⁷ This indicates that a debtor was afraid of being detained by his creditor in those days. Ṛg. VIII. 66. 10 indicates that money-lenders made a stipulation to receive double of what they lent, 'Indra strikes by his power all *paṇis* who make representations of taking double'.⁶⁶⁸ The Ait. Br. 33. 1 (*ṛṇam-asmin san-nayati*)⁶⁶⁹ employs the very verb '*san-nayati*' which occurs in Ṛg. VIII. 47. 17. The Atharvaveda VI. 117. 3 and Tai. Br. III. 7. 9. 8 contain the same verse about a man being free from the obligations of this world, the next world (of pitṛs) and the third world (the world of gods).⁶⁷⁰ The Tai. S. (III. 3. 8. 1-2) uses the very word ‘kusīda’, which occurs⁶⁷¹ in the Dharmasūtras and smṛtis (for money-lending) when it says, ‘O Agni! whatever debt has not been paid back by me, the tribute that I owe to Yama, here do I make return of it; may I be freed from that debt!’. The Śat. Br. XIII. 4. 3. 11 associates *kusīdin* with black magic in the Pāriplava. The Nirukta (VI. 32) while commenting on Ṛg. III. 53.
v4.c63.540.2
14 explains the word ‘Pramaganda’ occurring therein as ‘one who is born of a family that is extremely usurious’.⁶⁷² Pāṇini employs the technical word ‘uttamarṇa’ (creditor) in his sūtra ‘dhārer-uttamarṇaḥ’ (I. 4. 35), he speaks of ‘ādhamarṇya’ (the position of a debtor) in II. 3. 70 and the word ‘pratibhū’ occurs in Pāṇini II. 3. 39, the word ‘vṛddhi’ (interest) in V. 1. 47. Pāṇini (IV. 4. 31) derives the words ‘kusīdika’ and ‘kusīdikīn.’ It is noteworthy that Pāṇini does not derive or mention the word *vārdhuṣika*, which is employed by even Āp. Dh. S. and Baud. Dh. S. and which is derived by Kātyāyana (the grammarian) in Vārtika 3 on Pāṇini IV. 4. 30, in which Pāṇini refers to such words as ‘dvaiguṇika’ or ‘traiguṇika’ which were applied to people that carried on the condemned methods of money-lending viz. extorting twofold or threefold of the money lent (the sūtra is ‘prayacchati garhyam’). Brahmaṇaspati is spoken of as ‘one who recovers a debt (*ṛṇam-ādadir*) in Ṛg. II. 24. 13 and the Ādityas as those ‘who, themselves being the observers of *ṛta* (the universal Law of Right), collect⁶⁷³ debts’ (Ṛg. II. 27. 4). In Ṛg. VIII. 32. 16 it is said that those priests who extract (and offer) Soma juice do not indeed owe a debt (to the gods). Divodāsa is said in Ṛg. VI. 61.
v4.c63.540.3
1 to have been the gift of Sarasvatī to Vadhryaśva as a son to pay off debts (*ṛṇacyutam*).⁶⁷⁴ These passages certainly establish that in the remote ages of the Ṛgveda it was a firm belief that men were under obligations to gods and pitṛs, which could be fulfilled only by worship (yajña) and by the birth of a son. These passages contain the germ of the doctrine of the three religious and spiritual debts that a man owed to gods, Manes (*pitṛs*) and sages, which he paid off by sacrifices, by the birth of a son and by vedic study (vide Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5, Śat. Br. I. 7. 2. 11 and Ait. Br. 33. 1 quoted in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 270, 560 notes 621 and 1302 and above n. 669). Gradually further universal obligations came to be added to this theory of spiritual debts. The Ādiparva (120. 17-20) holds that men owe four debts, viz the three vedic ones and the fourth to humanity in general (which is paid back by goodness to all) and Anuśāsana 37. 17 raises them to five (adding brāhmaṇas and guests to the well-known three)⁶⁷⁵. It appears to me that this theory of spiritual debts being already in the air, the same sanctity came gradually to be transferred to one's promises to repay monetary debts and carry out other secular engagements. The word *ṛṇa* had been applied both to spiritual and secular debts.
v4.c63.540.4
It is on account of this that the son was not only desired for repaying the spiritual debt owed to one's ancestors, but he was also expected to free his father (if the father could not himself repay the monetary debt) from the liability he incurred to his creditor. Nār. IV. 5-9 puts this clearly and most emphatically: "fathers desire to have sons for their own benefit thinking in their heart 'he will release me from liability to creditors and debtors' (or probably 'from high or low debts' i. e. spiritual and earthly debts). Three deceased (ancestors) must be honoured (by a man) and he must subsist on three (descendants) that come after him. These (the first three) series of ancestors rely (for repayment) of their twofold debts (spiritual and secular) on the fourth in descent. If a man fails to pay on demand a debt or promised gift, that sum (by the addition of interest) goes on growing till it amounts to a hundred crores and when a hundred crores are reached he is born again and again in the house of his creditor as a slave in order to repay the debt (by his labour). If an ascetic or a brāhmaṇa perpetually keeping the sacred fire (*agnihotrin*) dies without discharging his debts, the whole merit due to his austerities and the perpetual tending of fire belongs to his creditors".⁶⁷⁶ Kāt. (551, 591) expresses the same idea but adds that a debtor who has not repaid money borrowed may be born as a slave, a servant, a woman or a beast in the house of his creditor.
v4.c63.540.5
It was this belief that led to the doctrine of the pious obligation of the son to pay off his father's debts even if he received no property from the father.⁶⁷⁷