Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c7.4

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.