History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.686

v4.c63.t2.686

Compared to Western Christian countries very great religious tolerance prevailed in ancient India. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 388 (n. 928a), 723–724 for some remarks on this. Aśoka in his Pillar Edict VII (E. I. vol. II. p. 272) says that he looked after saṅghas, brāhmaṇas, Ājīvakas and all other sects (pāṣaṇḍa). The Bhagavadgītā (IX. 23–25) proclaims that the devotees that worship other gods do worship Kṛṣṇa himself though in an irregular way and that those who offer worship to the Manes or to the elements reach the goals they desire. The Mānasollāsa enjoins¹⁷²³ that one should give up condemnation of or hatred towards other gods, that one should show reverence on seeing an image or a temple and should not pass it over (in contempt). People of different countries no doubt twitted each other on the customs and usages peculiar to each; but it rarely went beyond the bandying of words. For example, even such a philosophical work as the Jīvanmuktiviveka remarks¹⁷²⁴ that brāhmaṇas of the south condemn even the learned brāhmaṇas of the north as flesheaters and brāhmaṇas of the north condemn southern brāhmaṇas because they marry their maternal uncle's daughters and because they carry earthen vessels in fairs or on pilgrimages. It was on account of the general attitude of religious tolerance that the smṛtis and digests prescribe that even the usages of heretical sects should be enforced by the king. Yāj. II. 192 prescribes¹⁷²⁵ that the king should guard against breach of the distinctive usages and conventions of guilds (of artisans), of traders, of heretical sects and bands (of soldiers). Nārada (samayasyānapākarma 1-3) states¹⁷²⁶ that the king should uphold the conventions of heretical sects, of traders, guilds and other groups and that whatever traditional usages, activities, mode of attendance and means of maintenance were peculiar to them should be permitted to them by the king without introducing any change. Among the matters of which the king was to take cognizance *suo motu* and included under prakīrṇaka by Nārada (verse 2) was the transgression of the usages of heretics, traders, guilds and gaṇas. Bṛhaspati provides¹⁷²⁷ that in disputes among husbandmen, artisans, wrestlers, moneylenders, guilds, dancers, heretics, thieves, a decision is to be given in accordance with their conventions. It is no doubt true that certain smṛtis present a sterner treatment of heretics and the like. Gaut. IX. 17 provides¹⁷²⁸ that a snātaka should not talk with *mlecchas*, impure persons and sinners. Manu IX. 225 prescribes that the king should banish from his capital gamblers, dancers, heretics, vintners &c. Manu IV. 30 holds that one should not honour as guests even by words persons who are heretics, rogues &c. and recommends that one should not reside in a country which is overrun by groups of heretics. Yāj. II. 70 and Nār. (ṛṇādāna 180) say that a heretic (pākhaṇḍī) or an atheist is not a proper witness. These passages may be explained in various ways. Probably the prescriptions of Gautama and Manu refer to an age when the schism caused by Buddhists and Jainas was not very old and feelings between the followers of the Veda and the heretics ran high. But most of these prescriptions are addressed to the followers of the Veda as individuals. They do not negative the requirements laid down by Nār., Bṛ. and others that the king (though of a different persuasion) was to enforce among heretics their own usages. It can be said without any fear of contradiction that at least from the 4th century A. D. onwards the policy of the State in India was '*to protect all religions, but to interfere with none*'.¹⁷²⁹