History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.895

v4.c63.895

Nār. XVIII. 1 defines *vākpāruṣya* as 'abusive words that loudly proclaim censure of another's country, caste, family and the like and that cause mental pain or offence to that man.' Kāty. (768) defines it as⁹²² consisting in making the sound 'hum' (of defiance) before another or coughing before him, of imitating or uttering before another whatever is censurable according to popular notions. Nār. (XVIII. 2-3) says that abuse is of three kinds, *niṣṭhura* (reproachful such as calling a man a fool or a rogue), *aślīla* (obscene or insulting), *tīvra* (mercilessly severe such as charging a man with such grave sins as brāhmaṇa-murder or drinking liquor) and that the punishment for each later one is more severe than for each preceding one. Examples of the abuse of country, caste and family are respectively 'the Gauḍas are quarrelsome', 'brāhmaṇas are extremely greedy', 'persons of the Viśvāmitra gotra commit cruel deeds'. Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 355 verses 2-4) divided vākpāruṣya into three kinds viz. lowest (when the country, caste or family of a person is abused or sinfulness is ascribed without specifying any definite act), middling (speaking that the abuser will have sexual intercourse with the mother or sister of the abused or ascribing the commission of *upapātakas*⁹²³ or minor sins to the abused), highest (charging him with taking forbidden food or drink or mercilessly exposing or ascribing the grave sins to a person). Various fines are prescribed in the smṛtis that depend upon the above distinctions and also on the castes of the abuser and the abused. For example, Manu VIII. 267 (=Nār. XVIII. 15=Matsya 227. 66) prescribes the punishments of 100 paṇas, 150 or 200 paṇas, corporal punishment respectively against a kṣatriya or a vaiśya or a śūdra abusing a brāhmaṇa and conversely Manu VIII. 268 (=Nār. XVIII. 16) provides that a brāhmaṇa calumniating a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra should respectively be fined 50, 25 or 12 paṇas. In the case of the abuser and the abused being of the same varṇa the fine for ordinary abuse is 12 paṇas, but double of this if the abuse is, according to Manu VIII. 269 (=Nār. XVIII. 17), foul (relating to mother, sister &c.). Vide Yāj. II. 206-207, Viṣṇudharmasūtra V. 35. From the remarks of the Sm. C. and the Madanaratna it appears that these discriminating provisions⁹²⁴ based on the caste⁹²⁵ and the ascription of minor or grave sins had become a dead letter and were not being enforced by the kings in India by the 12th century A. D. at least. One or two matters, however, may be noted. Manu VIII. 268-272 and 274 are the same as Nār. XVIII. 16-17, 22-24. Even the truth of an imputation⁹²⁶ afforded no complete exemption e. g. if a person angrily calls a man a thief (who was once convicted of it) or speaks of him as blind or cripple, the former would be fined at least one kārṣāpaṇa (Manu VIII. 274 = Nār. XVIII. 18). Kāuṭ. (III. 18) provides in this case three paṇas⁹²⁷ as fine and Viṣṇudharmasūtra (V. 27) two paṇas. When the imputation is false all provide for a fine double of that provided in case the imputation is true. Ironic praise of a man (such as describing one who is blind of one eye as one endowed with a beautiful eye) is made punishable by Kauṭ. (III. 18). To warn⁹²⁸ a man against associating with a person who is guilty of a grave sin or of theft does not entail punishment if the truth of the imputation be established (Kāt. 776). Acc. to Kauṭ. and Kāt. (775) the king was to award only half the fine prescribed if the accused said 'what I uttered in abuse was done through ignorance, carelessness, rivalry or friendship; I shall not again do so'⁹²⁹. A person who abuses a king doing his duty was to have his tongue cut off or forfeited all his property (Nār. XVIII. 30, Yāj. II. 302). Āp. II. 10. 27. 14 prescribed for a śūdra that abused any one of the three higher castes leading a religious life the punishment of the cutting of the tongue⁹³⁰.