The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c14.46

c14.46

Later than Viṣṇu but more systematic, comprehensive and, therefore, more influential is Yājñavalkya. A compilation rather than an original production, his Smṛti borrows freely from Dharma Sūtras, Manu, Viṣṇu and the Purāṇas among others. According to him there are fourteen seats or sources of the sciences and Dharma—the Purāṇas, Nyāya, Mimāṃsā, the Dharma Śāstras, the six Aṅgas and the four Vedas. But he seems to have perceived that these authorities did not always agree among themselves. For the correct interpretation and thorough elucidation of law, Yājñavalkya would constitute a Pariṣad or legal assembly of members versed in the Vedas, Dharmas and the three sciences. Its decrees should be considered law. Failing such an assembly, the verdict of the foremost of theologians should be law. Like Manu, he recognises ātmatuṣṭi or one's conscience as one of the sources of law. It will appear that the king did sometimes constitute Pariṣads for the solution of legal doubts and that his own conscience, expressed through decrees, was a source of law.¹ In Yājñavalkya the sphere of government coincides with the whole field of human life.² On principles of justice he does not say much that is new. He grants that the customs of families, castes and corporations should be respected but he would allow appeals from their decisions to royal judges. All cases which might have been wrongly decided should be re-tried. His scale of the three amercements differs from that of Manu, being twenty, forty and eighty paṇas respectively.³ For the safety of the king, the treasury and the people, numerous fortresses should be erected and placed in charge of experts.⁴