Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c7: Chapter IV. Manu
Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c7
- Language
- English
Contents
- c7.38 — 4 parts
Chapter IV. Manu
c7.2
After the Mahâbhârata, the law books constitute one of the most important sources of Hindu governmental theory. They profess to cover the whole field of life and lay down extremely minute regulations on everything. They deal with administration when they describe the duties of the Kṣatriyas. They indicate a full theory of government when they discuss the duties of all the castes and stages and when they inquire, though in a perfunctory manner, into the origin of things. The most influential of Hindu law-books is the famous "Code" of Manu which still influences the life and thought of millions. Its exact date cannot be ascertained. There are ideas, verses and, perhaps, chapters in it which belong to a remote antiquity. Manu appears many times in the Mahâbhârata. According to Ancient Hindu tradition, Manu was the first king of mortals. Fragments bearing his name must have been composed long ago. When the work assumed its present compact form cannot be accurately determined. Max Müller held that it was posterior to the fourth century A.D. But its closest student, editor and translator, George Bühler, holds that the work, as we know it, existed in the second century A.D.¹ This is the safest date to assume for all purposes of discussion.
c7.3
¹ The Laws of Manu, translated with extracts from seven commentaries by George Bühler, in the Sacred Books of the East Series, Oxford, 1886. See his Introduction for the discussion of the date. J. Jolly thinks that Manu-smṛiti cannot be later than the second or third century A.D. See also the late A. C. Burnell's Introduction to his translation entitled 'The Ordinances of Manu.' The Mânavas represent one of the six subdivisions of the Maitrâyaṇî School of the Black Yajurveda. It is believed by some that Manu-smṛiti is a popular work intended for Râjâs and similar persons and not for learned Brâhmaṇas. But the influence of the work has been profound over all classes. The ideas and sometimes the phraseology of Manu occur in most of the extant law-books. See also Ch. VI.
c7.4
The fundamental social and political conditions of India do not seem to have changed between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D. The social ideas of Manu accord closely with those of the Mahābhārata. The two are probably derived partly from the same sources—sources which are now lost to us. They have a number of verses in common. Both reflect the same intellectual temper. Only the atmosphere of the epic is freer than that of the Code. The latter claims to be a Dharmaśāstra and must always hold fast to religious moorings. Like the Mahābhārata, Manu repeats the ancient Vedic hymn that the Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras sprang respectively from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of the Creator.¹ It follows that the Brāhmaṇas are the greatest among men.² A Brāhmaṇa is born for the fulfilment of the sacred law. He becomes one with Brahman. He is an eternal incarnation of the law.³ The excellence of his origin entitles him to everything in the world. Whatever exists in the world is his property. He eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, and bestows but his own in alms. It is through his benevolence that other mortals subsist. The Brāhmaṇa’s wrath can destroy the king, together with his army and vehicles. The Brāhmaṇa is the support of the three worlds and of the gods. Kṣatriyas had their origin from Brāhmaṇas. Whether ignorant or learned, whether following noble or mean occupations, a Brāhmaṇa is a great divinity.⁴ Learning is the predominant occupation of a Brāhmaṇa but Manu allows him to follow agriculture, gleaning of corn, etc.⁵ Here the “Code” obviously makes a compromise between theory and practice.
c7.5
¹ Manu, I, 21.
c7.6
² Manu, I, 96.
c7.7
³ Ibid., I, 98.
c7.8
⁴ Ibid., I, 100-101; IX, 313-321.
c7.9
⁵ Ibid., IV, 4.
c7.10
Like the Brâhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas should offer sacrifices, study the Vedas and abstain from a life of sensuality. It was their function to bestow gifts and, above all, to protect the people. Like the Mahâbhârata Manu also insists on the harmony of Brâhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas for the welfare of the world.¹ For the Śûdras the lord has prescribed only one occupation, that of serving the other castes meekly.² They are barred from all sacred learning. He who explains the sacred law to a Śûdra or dictates a penance to him sinks along with his pupil into hell. By themselves Śûdras can never form a stable society. A kingdom which is destitute of twice-born people, which contains very many Śûdras and which is infested by atheists is soon afflicted with disease and famine aud utterly perishes. Brâhmaṇas should not reside in such a state.³ Many varieties of skilled labour are despised by Manu. He pointedly differs from those who regard agriculture as an excellent occupation. Brâhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas, even when following Vaiśya occupations, should desist from agriculture, because it means pain to the creatures living in the earth. Of agriculturists, shepherds, falconers, makers of bows and arrows, teachers in arms, trainers of elephants, oxen, horses or camels, bird-fanciers, etc., etc., he speaks in the same breath with sinners, adulterers, and lunatics. All are to be shunned by Brâhmaṇas at a repast. Nowhere in Manu are Śûdras held in high esteem. For example, we are told that a twice-born person who does not study the Vedas but who applies himself to wordly study, soon falls, along with his posterity, to the condition of a Śûdra. There is no real excellence to which the Śûdra can attain. While trade and usury are called Satyânṛita (a mixture of truth and falsehood), service, which is assigned to Śûdras is once referred to as Śvavṛitti or a jog's mode of life. The seniority of Brāhmaṇas is reckoned according to knowledge, that of Kṣatriyas from valour, that of Vaiśyas according to wealth in grain and other goods, but the seniority of Śūdras can be determined only according to age. Elsewhere 'Manu declares that Śūdras are born slaves. On the other hand, twice-born people are not to be set to servile work even by Brāhmaṇas.¹ But, once again, theory compromises with facts. A man of faith may receive pure learning even from one of a lower caste, as he may receive the highest law from the lowest and an excellent wife from a base family.²
c7.11
¹ Ibid., I, 89; IX, 322.
c7.12
² Ibid., I, 91.
c7.13
³ Ibid., VIII, 22; IV, 81, 61.
c7.14
¹ Ibid., III, 154—167; II, 168; II, 155; VIII, 418—4, 412; IV, 4—6; V, 88—84.
c7.15
² Ibid., II, 238.
c7.16
Later, it is expressly allowed that in the case of a second marriage, one may wed a woman of a lower caste. People of all caste must be set to their duty. In particular, Manu remarks that Vaiśyas and Śūdras must be compelled to perform their prescribed jobs, for if they swerved from their duties, the world would be thrown into confusion. Such is the social scheme which the government is asked to enforce.³
c7.17
³ Ibid., III, 18; VIII, 418. On the duties of castes see also Ch. IX.
c7.18
Manu, who keeps one eye on his ideals and the other on facts, has to extend the sources of law beyond the sacred texts. He admits that Śruti or the Vedas and Smṛti or tradition (generally embodied in Institutes) constitute the prime authorities never to be questioned. But he goes on to mention two other sources of law—the customs of virtuous men and one's own inclination. Taken together, they all constitute the fourfold means of defining the sacred law.⁴ When two sacred texts conflict, both are held to be law. It is obvious, though Manu does not draw the inference, that the deciding factor is custom or reason. Later, in his chapter on Civil and Criminal Law, he is more explicit: "What may have been practised by the virtuous, by such twice-born men as are devoted to the law, that he shall establish as law, if it be not opposed to the (customs of) countries, families, and castes." Clearly, local and communal custom must always be respected and, for the rest, sound tradition should have its way. Manu also remarks that legal disputes of all sorts should be decided "according to principles drawn from local usages and from the Institutes of the sacred law." Almost in the same breath he advises the judges to depend on "the eternal law" but, in his view, it involves no inconsistency with the observance of local usage.¹
c7.19
⁴ Ibid., II, 10, 12.
c7.20
¹ Ibid., II, 14; VIII, 46, 8, 8.
c7.21
The enforcement of law as of the social order is part of the protection for which the kingship was instituted. There was at first no king. As a result, the people found themselves in trouble and fled in all directions. For their protection, the Lord created a king.² The kingship is thus divine in origin, though utilitarian in purpose. The king was composed out of the eternal particles of the gods, Indra, Varuṇa, Yama, the Wind, Fire, the Sun and the Moon. The king performs the functions of them all on earth and surpasses all created beings in lustre. According to the purpose, occasion and circumstances, he assumes various forms "for the complete attainment of justice." All should honour the king. It is exceedingly foolish and suicidal to hate him. None should disobey him.³
c7.22
² The Kingship.
c7.23
³ Ibid., VII, 8. Ibid., VII, 4–12; V.
c7.24
The king, on his part, must be humble and modest, versed in sacred and secular lore. "Day and night he must strenuously exert himself to conquer his senses; for he (alone) who has conquered his own senses, can keep his subjects in obedience." He must shun all the vices which spring from sensuality, greed and wrath. He must be unremitting in the performance of his duty. He must rise in the last watch of the night, perform religious ceremonies, worship the Brāhmaṇas and then commence the business of government by entering the hall of audience and gratifying all who have come to see him. Then he must proceed to consult his ministers. The daily programme which Manu prescribes for the king follows the lines of the Mahābhārata.¹
c7.25
¹ Ibid., VII, 37-53, 145-46, 216-26.
c7.26
The king must relentlessly enforce the scheme of human duties. Like the Mahābhārata, Manu applauds Chastisement, as an incarnation of the Law, formed of Brāhmaṇa's glory, protector of all. It is the real king and manager of affairs. It governs, guards and protects all creatures. It is the surety for obedience to the law on the part of the four orders. It prevents the castes from intermixture and corruption; it maintains wholesome barriers. If the king did not punish those worthy of punishment, the stronger would roast the weaker, like fish on a spit; the crow would eat the sacrificial cake and the dog would lick the sacrificial viands. The lower ones would usurp the higher places and the very idea of possession, that is, of property would vanish.² Behind this insistence on Chastisement lies the conviction that man is naturally a depraved being. "A guiltless man," says Manu, "is hard to find."
c7.27
² Ibid., VII. 14-21. 24.
c7.28
alone can keep the world in order. Why, even the gods and demons perform their functions only when they are tormented by the fear of punishment. The object of punishment is, of course, the good of the people. Fundamentally, the policy of the government ought to be a paternal one. The king should "behave like a father towards all men." His very appearance, like that of the full moon, should be a signal for joy. As Indra, the god of rain, besprinkles the earth with water, so should the king shower favours upon the people. On Brāhmaṇas, in particular, lavish gifts should be bestowed. Śrotriyas must be provided for according to the degree of their learning. If they suffer penury, the kingdom is afflicted by famine. The king under whose protection, Brāhmaṇas perform meritorious acts is rewarded with a long life, prosperity and increase of dominion. In fact, he receives one-sixth of their spiritual merit. A Kṣatriya should never take a Brāhmaṇa's property. A king who cannot protect his subjects from robbery is a dead and not a living king. It falls to the king to regulate the economic life of the community. Traders are open thieves, a species of robbers. They must be watched and controlled by the king. He must fix the prices of all marketable goods, mark the weights and measures and re-examine them every six months. The followers of various occupations, mechanics, manual workers, all come in for state supervision. It is the duty of the king above all to annihilate theft, adultery, defamation, violence and assault. Physicians or veterinary surgeons who wrong their patients must be fined. Oppression is bound to deprive the king of his life and possessions and ruin all his relations.¹
c7.29
¹ Ibid., VII, 22-23, 80, 82-86; III, 134-136, 143; VIII, 309, 401-403, 386; IX, 256-257, 258-260, 304, 309; XI, 18, 22, 23. "As the lives of living creatures are destroyed by tormenting their bodies, even so the lives of kings are destroyed by their oppressing their kingdoms." Ibid., 112.
c7.30
A number of ministers are essential for the discharge of governmental functions. Not even an easy undertaking can be accomplished single-handed, much less the government of a realm which yields great revenues. There ought to be seven or eight ministers—men of birth, learning, heroic valour, trained warriors, all well-tried. Every day they should be consulted on peace, war, finance, endowments and general administration. The king should consult them first individually and then collectively and ultimately decide for himself. Besides the ministers, there was another august personage in whom the king had to repose unstinted confidence. The learned Brāhmaṇa, that is, the royal priest, must be fully consulted before the commencement of any enterprise. Consultations must always be held in secret, in a lonely place, in a solitary forest or at the back of a hill or a terrace, at midnight or midday. Women, old men, barbarians, the sick, the deformed, the dumb, the deaf, the blind, idiots and animals must be removed far from places of counsel. They all, and particularly women, betray secrets. A king whose plans are not betrayed enjoys the whole earth though he be poor in treasure.
c7.31
Another official of first-rate importance was the ambassador, a sort of foreign secretary and plenipotentiary-general. He transacted all business by which kings "are disunited or not." He negotiated all alliances. He must not only be honest, skilful and well-born but also versed in all sciences, able to understand hints, gestures and expressions of the face. Beauty, courage and eloquence were his additional qualifications. Then, there were a large number of other officials concerned with mines, manufactures, storehouses, revenue, etc.¹
c7.32
¹ Ibid., VII, 54-68, 80-81, 147-151. The importance of the ambassador is thus indicated: "The army depends on the officer, the due control (of the subjects) on the army, the treasury and the realm on the king, peace and its opposite on the ambassador." (Ibid., 65.)
c7.33
The unit of government was, naturally, the village. Every village must have a headman. The successively higher areas of local government were formed by groups of ten, twenty, a hundred and a thousand villages. From the village headman upwards, every official must keep his immediate superior fully informed of all happenings and all crimes committed within their jurisdiction. Every town must have a "superintendent of all affairs, elevated in rank, formidable, a planet among the stars." He must have an army of spies to assist him in "exploring" the behaviour of the people. The whole sphere of local government was placed in charge of a minister at the head-quarters. A company of soldiers must be stationed "in the midst of two, three, five or hundreds of villages for the protection of the kingdom." It will appear that Manu prescribes salaries in kind or land. The village headman was entitled to receive articles such as food, drink and fuel which the villagers ought to furnish daily to the king. The lord of ten villages was entitled to one kula of land, that is, as much as would suffice for the maintenance of one family; the ruler of twenty villages to five kulas; the superintendent of a hundred villages got a village in Jagir as the medieval Mughals would have called it. The lord of a thousand villages was entitled to the revenues of a town.¹
c7.34
¹ Ibid., VII, 118-122.
c7.35
The strict supervision and control of all the officials was one of the prime duties of the king. Power succumbs only too often to temptation. Royal officers, appointed for the protection of the people, "generally become knaves" and seize the property of others. Against their designs, the subjects must be protected. Evil-minded officials who were guilty of bribery must suffer the confiscation of their whole property.
c7.36
and must be banished. Ministers or judges who were at fault in the discharge of their duties should be fined a thousand paṇas.¹
c7.37
¹ Ibid., 123-44; IX, 234.
c7.38.1
Manu lays down the same principles of taxation as the Mahâbhârata. He has a remarkable idea on the origin and validity of property. "Land belongs to him who clears off the timber and a forest animal to him who owns the arrow." It reminds one of Locke who sees the beginning of property in the mixing of human labour with natural substance. But in Manu the idea is not followed up by establishing taxation on consent. The maxim is "No taxation without protection." A king who levies taxes but does not afford protection takes upon himself "all the foulness of his people" and sinks into hell. Duties and taxes must be fixed after full consideration in a manner so as to provide an adequate revenue to the state and an adequate return to the workers. "As the leech, the calf and the bee take their food little by little, even so must the king draw from his realm moderate annual taxes." The land-tax should be one-sixth, one-eighth, or one-fourth of the crops, that is, the gross produce. "A fiftieth of cattle and gold may be taken by the king," says Manu. Here he seems to refer to fresh acquisitions in these species of property. There was hardly anything which the state did not tap to increase its resources. Manu awards the king a sixth part of "trees, meat, honey, clarified butter, perfumes, (medical) herbs, substances used for flavouring food, flowers, roots and fruits;
c7.38.2
of leaves, pot-herbs, grass, (objects) made of cane, skins, of earthen vessels, all (articles) made of stone." The duties on traders should be fixed on a consideration of the rates of sale and purchase, the means of communication, the charges of securing goods and the necessary expenses of the dealers. Elsewhere Manu prescribes one-twentieth of the value of each saleable commodity as calculated by experts. All who live by traffic must annually pay something, be it a trifle. There seems to have existed some state monopolies and restrictions on exports and, perhaps, also imports. Those who violated these rules were to suffer the confiscation of their whole property. An attempt to defraud the customs-house was to be punished with a fine eight times the amount due. There was another species of contribution to which the state was entitled from those who had nothing to give in cash or kind. Mechanics, artisans and Śūdras who lived by manual labour, should work for the king for a day in each month.¹ Treasure-trove is pointed out as another source of income. The king was entitled to one-sixth, one-tenth or at least one-twelfth of the property lost and afterwards found. Such property was to be deposited temporarily with special officers. If any one of them tampered with it, he was to be trampled under the feet of an elephant.
c7.38.3
If any one laid a false claim to it, he was to be fined one-eighth of his property or less if the value of the treasure trove was not enough to justify such a fine. Property of which the owner had disappeared must be deposited with the state. If unclaimed for three years, it was to lapse to the king. Any one who claimed it at all, must accurately describe its colour, shape, size, the number of its items, the time and place of its loss, etc. If he failed to do so, he should pay a fine equal in value to that of the article claimed. All this, however, does not apply to property stolen by thieves. That must be restored to its rightful owner of any caste whatever. If the king appropriates such goods, he incurs the guilt of a thief. If the king, that is, the state, discovered any old treasure hidden under ground, half of it must go to the royal exchequer and the other half be distributed among Brâhmaṇas. Not only of ancient hoards but also of the metals underground, the king was entitled to one-half for two reasons. In the first place, he gave protection to all. In the second place, he was the lord of the soil. Here Manu seems to indicate that essentially the state was the owner of the land. Numerous petty dues were levied at ferries. Their classification is curious.
c7.38.4
"At a ferry, an (empty) cart shall be made to pay one paṇa, a man's (load) half a paṇa, an unloaded man one-half of a quarter." Carts laden with merchandise paid according to the value of the goods.¹ It will be observed that the state shares with Brâhmaṇas the distribution of treasure-trove. To Brâhmaṇa scholars was given a yet greater privilege. Śrotriyas were not to be taxed under any circumstances. The king may be dying of want but he is to make no levy on them. On the other hand, they must always be provided with the necessaries of life. Nor should those people be taxed who conferred benefits on Śrotriyas. These provisions implied a patronage of learning, education and scholarship. Helpless folk were also exempt from taxes. Those who had completed seventy years of age, who were blind, cripples or idiots should not be forced to pay a tax.²
c7.39
¹ Ibid., VIII, 307-8; VII, 127-138; VIII, 398-99, 400; IX, 44.
c7.40
¹ Ibid., VIII, 39–40; 40–45.
c7.41
² Ibid., VII, 133–36; VIII, 394.
c7.42
In all Hindu political theory, justice forms an essential part of the protection which sums up the function of the state. "Justice, being violated, destroys; Justice, being preserved, preserves; therefore justice must not be violated, lest violated justice should destroy us." If a thief escapes punishment, the guilt falls on the king. Those who provide thieves with fire, food, or places for their weapons or who help them in concealing their crime should be executed as thieves. The murder of Brāhmaṇas, women or children must be punished capitally. Those who seduced ministers from their loyalty, made false proclamations or served the interests of the king's enemies deserved the same fate. Mutilation figures occasionally in the criminal code of Manu. A cut-purse, for instance, had two of his fingers cut off on his first offence. If he repeated the crime he should lose a hand and a foot, while for the third offence, he should be punished capitally. Robbers who cut the walls and committed thefts should be deprived of their hands and fastened on sharp stakes. All who obstructed popular well-being in any manner must be severely dealt with. For example, the destruction of the wall or gate of a town or the filling up of the ditch should be punished by instantaneous banishment. If any one destroyed a bridge or the flag, a pole or images of a temple or a royal palace, he must repay the damage and pay a fine of five hundred paṇas. Any one who stole the rope or water-pot from a well or damaged a hut where water was distributed must repay the loss and pay a fine of a māṣa. If the breaker of the dam of a tank does not repay the damage and pay the first amercement, he should be drowned into the tank or otherwise put to death. Those who defiled the sanitation of the king's high road must remove the filth and pay a fine.¹ Manu has his own ideas of social morality and wants them to be enforced by the state. For example, he stigmatises as adulterous such acts as offering presents to a woman, romping with her, touching her dress or ornaments or sitting with her on the same bed. Adultery was to be punished with a terrible physical mutilation and
c7.43
¹ IX, 289, 285; 279, VIII, 15, 319; IX, 282, 271, 278, 282, 277, 276. To the rule on sanitation, there is a qualification. Old men, pregnant women and children and persons in urgent necessity were reprimanded and had to clean the place but were not fined. Ibid., 288
c7.44
banishment. Caste had a good deal to do with the law on morality. Manu objects to adultery partly because it means a mixture of the castes whence follows sin, “which cuts up even the roots and causes the destruction of everything.” A maiden who makes advances to a high caste man is not to be fined but she who courts a low caste man is to be interned in her home. A low caste man who makes love to a maiden of the highest caste must suffer corporal punishment but if he addresses himself to a maiden of his own caste he is only to pay the nuptial fee at the desire of her father. A rape on a woman of equal caste brought a fine of two hundred paṇas while that on a woman of a different order was punished with a fine of six hundred paṇas and the amputation of two fingers. Caste invades the social law at another point. Where others suffered capital punishment, a Brāhmaṇa was subjected only to a tonsure of the head. “No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brāhmaṇa; a king, therefore, must not even conceive in his mind the thought of killing a Brāhmaṇa.” At the worst, a Brāhmaṇa was only to be banished and even then he must be allowed to take up all his property with him. If a Brāhmaṇa approached an unguarded Kṣatriya or Vaiśya woman, he was fined five hundred paṇas, but in the case of a Śūdra woman a thousand paṇas. A Vaiśya who approached an unguarded Brāhmaṇa woman was fined five hundred paṇas; a Kṣatriya for the same offence a thousand paṇas. But if the woman in question was a guarded one, the Kṣatriya was humiliated and fined a thousand paṇas while the Vaiśya forfeited all his property and suffered imprisonment for a year. If the Śūdra was involved with an unguarded twice-born woman, he was castrated and deprived of all his property. If he violated a guarded twice-born woman, he was to lose his all and suffer death. Rather inconsistent with all those details, there is a general law in Manu that every one, except a Brâhmaṇa, guilty of adultery should be put to death.¹ This seems to have been the old law which had gradually been encrusted with further caste privileges.
c7.45
¹ Ibid., VIII, 352-53, 364-65, 367-68, 374-85, 359.
c7.46
Caste enters in an equally conspicuous manner into the law on defamation. For defaming a Brâhmaṇa, a Kṣatriya was to be fined a hundred paṇas, a Vaiśya from one hundred and fifty to two hundred while a Śûdra was to suffer corporal punishment. A Brâhmaṇa should be fined fifty, and twelve paṇas for defaming a Kṣatriya, a Vaiśya and a Śûdra respectively. There was a uniform penalty of twelve paṇas for twice-born men for defaming a caste-fellow. If a Śûdra mentions the names and castes of the twice-born with contumely, "an iron rail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth." If he insults a twice-born man with gross invective, his tongue shall be cut out, "for he is of low origin." If he was arrogant enough to teach Brâhmaṇas their duties, "the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears." Even harsher and sometimes unspeakable are the punishments prescribed for graver insults which a Śûdra may chance to offer to superior beings.² It is more than doubtful if these brutal maxims were ever actually carried out. Perhaps, they only embody the ultra-orthodox theory of the superiority of the twice-born and the supremacy of the Brâhmaṇa.
c7.47
² Ibid., VIII, 267-73; 281-84; see also 276-77. Manu, like other Hindu law-givers, lays down many spiritual penalties and penances for various serious and trivial offences. See Chapter XI of the Smṛiti.
c7.48
Judicial administration and procedure occupy a prominent place in the code of Manu. A remarkable feature is the introduction of the popular element into one of the most important classes of disputes. The settlement of boundaries between villages and fields was a plentiful
c7.49
source of litigation. If the inspection of various marks such as tanks, wells, cisterns, fountains and temples, failed to furnish decisive evidence, the case had to depend on the testimony of witnesses. These must be examined "in the presence of the crowd of the villagers and also of the two litigants. As they, being questioned, unanimously decide, even so he (the king) shall record the boundary." If no witnesses were available, the case should be left to the decision of people from four neighbouring villages.¹ Manu further allows that on certain occasions the law may be taken in one's own hand. A creditor, for example, may recover his debt by artful management or even by force. He "must not be blamed by the king" for retaking what is his own.² It need hardly be remarked that self-defence justified the employment of any means. The king must himself preside over the court, but he must always be assisted by Brāhmaṇas and learned councillors. In court, the king must maintain a dignified demeanour but he should not be ostentatious in his dress or ornaments. Seated or standing, he should raise his right arm and "examine the business of suitors." In the absence of the king, a learned Brāhmaṇa should act as judge, assisted by three councillors. Then, there is seen the court of the four-faced Brahman. It is never for Śūdras to interpret the law. A king who looks on while a Śūdra pronounces the sentence will find his realm sinking into misfortunes like a cow into a quagmire. The judges must try to find out the truth by inferences as a hunter traces the lair of a wounded deer by the drops of blood. "When engaged in judicial proceedings he must pay full attention to the truth, to the object, to himself, next to the witnesses, to the place, to the time and to the aspect."
c7.50
¹ Ibid., VIII, 48-50.
c7.51
² Ibid., VIII, 48-50.
c7.52
Irrespective of caste, trustworthy men, who know their whole duty and who are free from covetousness are admissible as witnesses. How these moral qualifications are to be ascertained we are not told, but those who do not possess them are barred by Manu from the witness-box. Interested persons, friends, companions, enemies, those convicted of perjury, were not admissible as witnesses. So, too, those wholly dependent, men of notoriety, Dasyus, followers of forbidden occupations, men of the lowest castes, those deficient in organs of sense, lunatics, thieves, wrathful people, those who are extremely grieved, intoxicated, tormented by hunger or thirst or desire, or oppressed by fatigue. The king could not be summoned as a witness, nor ascetics, students, Śrotriyas, mechanics, actors, old men and infants. As a rule, women, twice-born men, Śūdras, and men of the lowest castes should give evidence for people of the same class. But any person who has inside knowledge of a murder case, or of acts done in the interior of a house or in a forest, could be called as a witness. On failure of regular witnesses, indeed, any one could be summoned to bear evidence, women, infants, pupils, relations, slaves or hired servants for example. Particularly in cases of violence, theft, adultery, defamation and assault; the competence of witnesses should not be examined too closely. It appears that witnesses did not merely report facts; they shared a little of the character of assessors. This is the hypothesis which best explains the following verse in Manu:—
c7.53
“On a conflict of the witnesses the king shall accept the majority; if (the parties are) equal in number, those distinguished by good qualities; on a difference between the distinguished, the best among the twice-born.”
c7.54
In extraordinarily strong terms Manu demands truthful evidence. When the parties and witnesses were assembled in the court, the judge was to address as follows :—
c7.55
“ . . . . . A witness who speaks the truth in his evidence gains (after death) the most excellent regions and here unsurpassable fame; such testimony is revered by Brahman.
c7.56
“He who gives false evidence is firmly bound by Varuṇa’s fetters, helpless during one hundred existences; let (men) give true evidence.
c7.57
“By truthfulness a witness is purified, through truthfulness his merit grows, truth must, therefore, be spoken by witnesses of all castes.
c7.58
“The Soul itself is the witness of the Soul, and the Soul is the refuge of the Soul; despise not thy own Soul, the supreme witness of men . . . . . ”
c7.59
In commencing an examination, the judge should ask a Brāhmaṇa to “speak” and a Kṣatriya to “speak the truth.” He should admonish a Vaiśya by mentioning his grain, gold and kine. He should exhort and threaten a Śūdra as follows :—
c7.60
“Whatever places are assigned to the slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, to the murderer of women and children, to him who betrays a friend and to an ungrateful man, those shall be thine, if thou speakest falsely.
c7.61
“All meritorious deeds which thou, good man, hast done since thy birth, shall become the share of the dogs, if in thy speech thou departest from the truth.......
c7.62
“Naked and shorn, tormented with hunger and thirst, and deprived of sight, shall the man who gives false evidence go with a potshred to beg food at the door of his enemy.
c7.63
“Headlong, in utter darkness shall the sinful man tumble into hell, who being interrogated in a judicial inquiry answers one question falsely.......
c7.64
"Learn now, O friend, from an enumeration in due order how many relatives he destroys who gives false evidence in several particular cases.
c7.65
"He kills five by false testimony regarding (small) cattle, he kills ten by false testimony regarding kine, he kills a hundred by false evidence concerning horses, and a thousand by false evidence concerning men.
c7.66
"By speaking falsely in a cause regarding gold, he kills the born and the unborn; by false evidence concerning land, he kills everything; beware, therefore, of false evidence concerning land."
c7.67
From these sublime heights, however, Manu falls to the ridiculous when he says that if the true evidence would cause the death of a Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya or Śūdra, "a falsehood may be spoken; for such (falsehood) is preferable to the truth." As a rule, however, Manu insists on veracity in the law-courts, proscribes heavy fines for perjury and counsels the reversal of a judgment based on false evidence. Besides the evidence of witnesses, the observation of the voice, colour, motions, aspect, eyes and gestures of the parties should aid the judge in discovering the internal dispositions of man. Manu recognises two ordeals though he does not dilate on them at length. If one could dive under water or carry fire, one was held to be innocent. Once when Vatsa was accused by his younger brother, the fire, "the spy of the world," did not burn even a hair of his, for he was truthful.¹
c7.68
¹ Ibid., VIII, 1-2, 20-21, 71-123, 25-26, 115-17.
c7.69
Manu (VIII, 4-7) remarks that there are eighteen matters which give rise to law suits: (1) non-payment of debts, (2) deposit and pledge, (3) sale without ownership, concerns among partners, (5) resumption of gifts, (6) non-payment of wages, (7) non-performance of agreements, (8) rescission of sale and purchase, (9) disputes between the owner and his servants, (10) boundaries, (11) assault, (12) defamation, (13) theft, (14) robbery and violence, (15) adultery, (16) duties of man and wife, (17) partition, (18) gambling and betting.
c7.70
Punishment must always be just. "A King who punishes those who do not deserve it, and punishes not those who deserve it brings great infamy on himself and sinks into hell." There are, altogether, four grades of punishment—, admonition, reproof, fines and corporal chastisement. From the last Brâhmaṇas were exempt. Corporal infliction could fall on any part of the body such as the eyes, ears, the tongue, hands and feet.¹ Imprisonment seems to have been regarded as a variety of corporal punishment. It may be noted in passing that cases which had once been instituted could not be hushed up.¹
c7.71
¹ Ibid., VIII, 127—131, 43.
c7.72
¹ "The guilt of an unjust decision is shared equally by the criminal, the witness, the judges and the king." (VIII, 18.)
c7.73
Foreign policy, diplomacy and warfare are treated together by Manu. Here he enunciates no ethical principles but deals with the whole matter on the plane of expediency. He fully recognises the importance of ambassadors in the delicate negotiations that were always in progress among the numberless states. As a general rule, a king should look upon his immediate neighbour together with his partisan as a foe, upon the latter's immediate neighbour as his friend and on the king beyond these two as neutral. By force or diplomacy, by conciliation or gifts, he should try to impose his suzerainty on all. As the occasion demanded, he should yield or go ahead, make peace or alliances. Royal policy consists of six measures—, alliance, war, marching, halting, dividing the army and seeking protection. These are divided and sub-divided by Manu. He embarks on a long and rather amateurish discussion of military manoeuvres, seasons and modes of campaigning, formation of military ranks, etc., etc. He permits the devastation of hostile territory. When a king has shut up his foe in a town, “let him sit encamped, harass his kingdom, and continually spoil his grass, food, fuel and water. Likewise, let him destroy the tanks, ramparts and ditches.” It was almost the duty of a king to sow dissensions in the ranks of his enemies.
c7.74
In diplomatic and military affairs, as also in the internal administration, spies play a conspicuous part but Manu adds nothing to what the Mahâbhârata lays down on the subject.
c7.75
Espionage.
Linked texts (3)
- Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit