Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.67

c15.67

"The Śruti, Smṛiti, conduct of good men, what appears pleasant to one's self and the desire which springs from a good resolution." The commentator Vijñāneśwara reminds us that in case of a conflict among these sources "those stated first are stronger than those which follow."¹ But long before those writers, Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata, bewildered by the conflict of authorities, exclaimed that the true path is that which has been followed by the great. Besides the element of flexibility introduced in this manner, there is a provision for a machinery of interpretation of law on doubtful points. Many writers set up small pariṣads of Śiṣṭas to clarify and enunciate the law as occasion arose. The Matsya Purāṇa, indeed, declares that Śiṣṭas or the residue were some ancient sages who had stayed behind to assist Manu (the first of patriarchs and kings) in preserving the worlds in the present cycle and in preventing the old Dharma from decay and ruin by constantly instructing souls in their duties.² But the received meaning of the term was an exceptionally learned, pious, upright, exemplary Brāhmaṇa. Charged with the duty of interpretation they would necessarily modify the law. Since they owed their appointment to the king they might sometimes have registered the wishes of the government. On the whole, these assemblies served as an instrument of legislation. Their opinions, when accepted, and such decrees as the king might issue independently wore the only new laws, as distinct from the bye-laws of corporations, which were known to ancient India.