Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c8: Chapter IV. Gleanings from the Sûtras

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c8

Language
English

Chapter IV. Gleanings from the Sûtras

c8.2

(500—100 B.C.)

c8.3

After the Brâhmaṇas and the earlier Upaniṣads, the Sûtras stand out as the next important class of literature. In ancient India learning was generally cultivated in schools and the results arrived at were given the stamp of schools which were often attached to various Vedic sects. Such schools seem to have arisen all over the country by the sixth or fifth century B.C. By this time the Âryans had overspread the whole of northern India and penetrated far into the south. The wider their geographical distribution, the greater were the differences of doctrine, law, custom and ceremonial among them. The Sûtras, though agreeing in certain fundamentals, display innumerable differences of detail. The ‘threads,’ as the term means, are extremely thin. They represent the very acme of concision which too often renders them obscure and dreary. Nevertheless, they do in a large measure simplify and systematise the complicated theology and ritual of the Brâhmaṇas. Broadly speaking, they fall into three classes, or rather aspects, the Śrauta, Gṛihya and Dharma—the sacrificial, domestic and legal. A complete collection, a Kalpa Sûtra, should comprise all the three but many of them have perished and, generally, each body of Sûtra stands independent of others. Their fundamental object is the same—the regulation of human life. Their full and detailed instructions show the great place which authority occupied in the direction of the Hindu mind. In general, they fall between the sixth and second centuries before Christ but the exact date of each can not be determined. Bühler placed the Dharma Sûtras, which from our point of view are the most important, between the sixth and third centuries B.C. and formulated a chronological order—Gautama, Baudhâyana, Vasiṣṭha and Âpastamba. Jolly assigns Gautama and Baudhâyana to the sixth or fifth century B.C., and Vasiṣṭha and Âpastamba to the fifth or fourth century B.C. Jayaswal would attribute the first forms of the Sûtras to about 500 B.C., but in their present shape he would place Gautama at 350 B.C., Baudhâyana at 240 B.C. and Vasiṣṭha at 100 B.C. Hopkins thinks that “probably the Grihyas represent the earlier Sûtras; the Dharmas as a whole come later, perhaps 300 B.C. would represent the earliest.” Âpastamba, he concludes, “probably is not older than the second century B.C.,” while Vasiṣṭha is even later. It is again probable that many of the Sûtras were recast subsequently, and that their text has been frequently tampered with to bring them into harmony with the later Dharma Śâstras. Gautama, in fact, is known as a Dharma Śâstra. Only roughly can the Sûtras be held to reflect the life of the period from 500 to 100 B.C. during which they arose. It will be a mistake to compare the Dharma Sûtras or the later Dharma Śâstras, as Sir William Jones compared Manu, to the Institutes of Justinian. The Hindu texts do not embody any system of positive law and represent no real system of jurisprudence. They are manuals of conduct, of ideal morality or law. Besides, they are pre-eminently the product of priestly brains and tend to look at life from a narrow standpoint.

c8.4

From this body of literature, extensive as it is, it is possible to obtain only a few glimpses of the actual structure and working of contemporary political institutions. Among

c8.5

the best known of the Śrauta Sūtras are the two belonging to the Rigveda—the Śāṅkhāyana and the Āśvalāyana. The followers of the former Caraṇa or school were later settled in northern Gujarāt and those of the latter in the south between the Godāvarī and the Kṛṣṇā.¹ But the beginnings of the Sūtras themselves lie probably in the north. Both describe the complicated ceremonies of the various royal consecrations, the Śāṅkhāyana at greater length than the other. Its account of the Rājasūya is a turgid elaboration of the description in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. In the course of it occurs the interesting statement that “it is Varuṇa whom they consecrate.”² It enumerates seven kings—four of them being Pārikṣitas—who performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice.³ The Lāṭyāyana Śrauta Sūtra, the accepted manual of the Kauthuma school attached to the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, remarks that “whomsoever the Brāhmaṇas and Rājānaḥ (kings or nobles) may place at their head, let him perform the Vājapeya.”⁴ From this it may be inferred that any ruler could perform the Vājapeya and that the ceremonies had lost their characteristic value at least in some places. The Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra which belongs to the white Yajurveda and, on the whole, strictly follows the order of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, clearly distinguishes between Rājya and Sāmrājya, and lays down that the Rājasūya is to be performed by a king who has not yet performed the Vājapeya.⁵ On the other hand, the Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra rules that “after performing it (the Vājapeya), let a king perform the Rājasūya……”⁶ The Āpastamba Śrauta Sûtra, which belongs to the Black Yajurveda, would restrict the Aśvamedha to the Sârvabhauma Râjâ or universal monarch. It records an interesting rite in the course of which the Adhvaryu was temporarily reckoned as sovereign. "He (the king) hands over the kingdom to the Adhvaryu, and says, 'O Brâhmaṇas and princes, this Adhvaryu is your king; whatever loyal respect is due to me, the same from you may be shown to him, whatever he does by you (or to you), the same shall be considered as authoritatively done to you.' As long as the sacrifice lasts, the Adhvaryu becomes the king."¹ The Baudhayana Śrauta Sûtra which also belongs to the Black Yajurveda and which is older than the Āpastamba gives a slightly different version. "Here (in the Aśvamedha) those who anoint a Kṣatra as the king anoint the Adhvaryu (in his stead). He (the Kṣatriya king) says—'O Brâhmaṇas and princes, the Adhvaryu will be the king these two years; obey him; whoever does not obey him, the whole property of him they will confiscate.' Accordingly, the Adhvaryu is the king these two years."² Whether the Brâhmaṇa sacrificial agent ever actually exercised political authority in the interregnum is more than doubtful, but these details furnish a graphic idea of the political importance and prestige of the priesthood. The Baudhayana Śrauta Sûtra also reveals the tremendous significance attached to the Aśvamedha. None was to meddle with its progress. For instance, if any one, in disregard of the royal proclamation, let out mares to meet the wandering sacrificial horse, he was to be punished with confiscation of property.³ Incidentally, we learn that confiscation of property was now the recognised penalty for disobedience to the royal command.

c8.6

¹ Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 244-45.

c8.7

² Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, XV, 13, 4. See also XV, 1, 11.

c8.8

³ Ibid., XVI, 9.

c8.9

⁴ Lāṭyāyana Śrauta Sūtra, VIII, 11, 1. Also IX 11-3, for the Rājasūya.

c8.10

⁵ Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra, XV, 1, 1-2.

c8.11

⁶ Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra, IX, 3, 3 to IX, 4, 23. Also IX, 9, 11 for the Vājapeya.

c8.12

¹ Āpastamba Śrauta Sûtra, XX, 2, 12, 3, 1-2. See also XVIII, 1, 1; 8, 22.

c8.13

² Baudhayana Śrauta Sûtra, XV, 4.

c8.14

³ Ibid., XV, 8.

c8.15

Next to the Śrauta Sūtras stand the Grihya Sūtras. Nothing can exceed the minuteness with which they dilate on domestic ritual but they rarely extend their scope beyond it. Incidentally, the Pāraskara Grihya Sūtra would grant autonomy to villages in private matters and family concerns.¹ No outside interference is needed. Here, probably, the Sūtra is more or less true to facts. The Parāśara Grihya Sūtra has an arresting statement. It declares that royalty does not depend on hereditary right, but on acquisition by the sword.² It points to an age of chronic warfare and political disturbance.² Caste is firmly entrenched in the Sūtras. For instance, in the Grihya Sūtra of Gobhila, there are caste distinctions in fetching fire.³

c8.16

¹ Pāraskara Grihya Sūtra, I, 8, 13.

c8.17

² Parāśara Grihya Sūtra, I, 68.

c8.18

³ Gobhila Grihya Sūtra, I, 1, 15-16.

c8.19

It is the Dharma Sūtras which are of real interest to the student of society and politics. Caste is fully developed in all of them. So, too, the Āśramadharma which divides the life of a twice-born man—a member of any of the three higher castes—into four stages, studentship, household, retirement and renunciation. All the Dharma Sūtras and, following them, the Dharma Śāstras, want the scheme of the duties of the four castes and four stages to be enforced by the government. It is, however, remarkable that all of them recognise two sorts of punishments for many sins, one to be inflicted by the government, and the other, a penance rather than a regular punishment, to be undergone by the sinner voluntarily or to be forced on him by those who wish him well in this, and particularly, in the next life. So, the sanctions, to use a modern term, are both civil and spiritual. It is sometimes difficult to say to which class a writer attaches greater importance. Gautama and Baudhāyana lend colour to the hypothesis that a system of penances, voluntary and enforced, was the earliest Hindu way of promoting virtue and punishing sin and that justice in the modern sense of the term was introduced only later. Sir Henry Maine supposed that rules of conduct were first worked out by priestly lawyers who later addressed themselves to the kingly power to have them enforced.¹ The facts, as known, do not support Maine's theory. From the prominence of penances in the Dharmaśāstras and Purāṇas, it appears that civil and spiritual jurisdictions in moral life ran concurrently.

c8.20

¹ Maine, Ancient Law and Custom, pp. 43-44.

c8.21

The school of the Gautamas represented by the earliest of the extant Dharma Sūtra compendiums, is a Caraṇa of the Sāmaveda.² It arose somewhere in the north. While basing his ethics on caste, Gautama makes some concessions to meet the exigencies of practical life. In distress, that is to say, in emergencies, a Brāhmaṇa may study under a non-Brāhmaṇa, and may follow the occupation of a Kṣatriya and, failing that, of a Vaiśya. In the last contingency he is to refrain from dealing in certain articles, though in the last extremity even these restrictions may be disregarded. Gautama would not like a Brāhmaṇa to follow Śūdra occupations under any circumstances, but he admits that some had permitted even this when life was in danger.³ In self-defence, a Brāhmaṇa may always use arms.⁴ Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas, too, may, in emergencies, follow lower occupations.⁵ In a later chapter he permits a Brâhmaṇa to practise usury, agriculture or trade, “provided he does not do the work himself.”¹ It may be assumed that orthodox writers would make these concessions only when compelled by the force of facts. It is clear that rules of caste, while recognised in theory by all, were not uniformly observed. In Gautama, the status of Śūdras tends to approximate to serfdom or slavery. A Śūdra should obtain his livelihood only from the higher castes,² eat the remnants of their food³ and use their cast-off shoes, umbrellas, garments and mats.⁴ He must support his master, in case of distress, with any savings of his own.⁵ On the other hand, he must be supported by his master even when no longer able to work.⁶ A regular family life is permitted to him,⁷ but all intellectual cultivation and participation in the higher spiritual life is denied to him. Only by permission can he use the exclamation, namaḥ (adoration), as his mantra.⁸ “If he (a Śūdra) listens, intentionally, to (a recitation) of the Veda, his ears shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac.⁹ If he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out.¹⁰ If he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain.”¹¹ There is no evidence to show how far such maxims were actually carried out. It may be that the Brâhmaṇas are painting themselves worse than they actually were. But it is clear that the position of the Śūdras was very hard. It seems that the Śūdras did not always accept their prescribed lot. Gautama invokes the might of the government to enforce the social order. He is deeply concerned to maintain the supremacy of Dvijas, the twice-born, and to keep Śūdras to the lowest place. "If he (a Śūdra) assumes a position equal to that of twice-born men in sitting, in lying down, in conversation or on the road, he shall undergo corporal punishment."¹

c8.22

² Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Tantravārtika, (Benāres edition), p. 179. Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 374. Bühler, Introduction to Gautama, p. L.

c8.23

³ Gautama, VII, 1-24.

c8.24

⁴ Ibid., VII, 25.

c8.25

⁵ Ibid., VII, 26.

c8.26

¹ Ibid., X, 5-6.

c8.27

² Ibid., X, 57.

c8.28

³ Ibid., X, 59.

c8.29

⁴ Ibid., X, 58.

c8.30

⁵ Ibid., X, 62.

c8.31

⁶ Ibid., X, 61.

c8.32

⁷ Ibid., X, 54, 55.

c8.33

⁸ Ibid., X, 64.

c8.34

⁹ Ibid., XII, 4.

c8.35

¹⁰ Ibid., XII, 5.

c8.36

¹¹ Ibid., XII, 6.

c8.37

¹ Ibid., XII, 7.

c8.38

In his eleventh chapter Gautama enunciates his maxims on government.² His theory lends itself to a few inferences about the contemporary state of things. His precepts would fit only a small state. The state in which he lived was either very small or a small feudatory of a big one. In any case, it was a whole by itself. Gautama wants the king to learn the use of the bow and the management of chariots and to stand firm in battle.³ He pictures the king seated on a high pedestal surrounded by his subjects who occupy lower seats.⁴ In Gautama⁵ and other Brahmanical writers, the Purohita is an institution by himself. Later epigraphic testimony helps the conclusion that a king usually had a high priest. There were also other priests at the court for the performance of Vedic sacrifices.⁶ When we are told that the king is the master of all except Brāhmaṇas,⁷ and that he shall be worshipped by all except Brāhmaṇas,⁸ it is legitimate to infer that the Brāhmaṇas occupied a privileged position, though the extent of the privilege was, doubtless, exaggerated by priestly law-givers. Gautama wants that Brāhmaṇas who are versed in sacred lore and live up to its precepts, should be exempted by the king from corporal punishment, imprisonment, fines,

c8.39

² Ibid., Chapter XI, in particular 1, 5–8, 11–14.

c8.40

³ Ibid., X, 7–12.

c8.41

⁴ Ibid., XI, 18.

c8.42

⁵ Ibid., XI, 7.

c8.43

⁶ Ibid., XI, 1.

c8.44

⁷ Ibid., XI, 12.

c8.45

⁸ Ibid., XI, 7.

c8.46

exile, censure and disgrace.¹ Here is an extensive claim to the ‘benefit of clergy’ but we do not know how far it was admitted in practice. Brâhmaṇas acted as counsellors of the sovereign. “For it is declared (in the Veda): ‘Kṣatriyas, who are assisted by Brâhmaṇas, prosper and do not fall into distress.’”² From their ranks, too, were drawn the astrologers and interpreters of omens who seem to have been attached to Hindu courts all through history. Gautama states the opinion of those who declared that ‘the acquisition of wealth and security depends upon taking heed of those readers of supernatural influences.’³

c8.47

¹ Ibid., VIII, 7–13.

c8.48

² Ibid., XI, 14.

c8.49

³ Ibid., XI, 15-16.

c8.50

In Gautama, as in other Hindu writers, the king is expected personally to administer justice, and to enforce the sacred law. But they all admit the validity of local or group custom. In spite of his ultra-orthodox leanings, Gautama recognised that “the laws of countries, castes and families which are not opposed to the (sacred) records, (have) also authority.”⁴ Again, “cultivators, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders, and artisans (have authority to lay down rules) for their respective classes.”⁵ Having learnt the (state of) affairs from those who (in each class) have authority (to speak), the king shall give the legal decision.⁶ Gautama thus grants legislative powers to groups or associations of men. It is more than probable that the followers of various occupations regulated part of their life and transactions by the customs which had spontaneously arisen among them and by the rules which were enunciated to meet any contingencies. It is again probable, as the text of Gautama suggests, that in the enforcement of these rules and customs, the royal judicial machinery had a share. A priestly law-giver would necessarily add that these regulations were to be enforced only when not opposed to the Scriptures, but in practice the force of local custom might have proved irresistible. It is significant that cultivators are mentioned among self-regulating groups. In practice it would mean that a village should enjoy a good deal of autonomy. A few provisions concerning agriculture are interesting. Unenclosed pasture-lands were to be used for grazing cattle and for firewood.¹ If cattle damaged fields or crops, the responsibility fell on the herdsman if he happened to be with them, otherwise on their owner.² But if the field damaged was unenclosed, its owner was held partly responsible.³

c8.51

⁴ Ibid., XI, 20.

c8.52

⁵ Ibid., XI, 21.

c8.53

⁶ Ibid., XI, 22.

c8.54

¹ Ibid., XII, 28.

c8.55

² Ibid., XII, 19-20.

c8.56

³ Ibid., XII, 21.

c8.57

Gautama makes it abundantly clear that during his time witnesses were usually summoned in a case⁴ and that some rules had been framed to determine the admissibility of their evidence in particular cases.⁵ But his elaborate prescriptions on the character, qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are so purely theoretical as to warrant no inference about actual practice. Gautama’s Twelfth Chapter, on Civil and Criminal Law, is full of details, but is not a statement of positive law. He seems to supply the model which he would like a code of law to follow. But it is permissible to infer from him that caste privilege had invaded public justice at innumerable points and that for the same offences different punishments were inflicted on members of different castes. The lot of a Śūdra might have been really hard.

c8.58

⁴ Ibid., XIII, 1.

c8.59

⁵ Ibid., Ch. XIII.

c8.60

To take a single instance, “a Śûdra who intentionally reviles twice-born men by criminal abuse, or criminally assaults them with blows, shall be deprived of the limb with which he offends.”¹

c8.61

¹ Ibid., XII, 1-2.

c8.62

Gautama, like Vasiṣṭha, prescribes five mâṣas for twenty kârṣâpaṇas as the rate of interest which, according to the commentator Haradatta, works out to 15 p.c. per annum.² For some articles, however, such as gold and flavouring substances, Gautama admits higher rates of interest.³ He recognises no less than six forms of interest, *viz.*, compound interest, periodical interest, stipulated interest, corporal interest, daily interest and the use of the pledged article.⁴ He remarks that when the principal has been doubled, interest ceases and that when the article pledged is used by the creditor, the loan bears no interest at all.⁵

c8.63

² Gautama, XII, 29. Vasiṣṭha, II, 51. Cf. Manu, VII, 140.

c8.64

³ Gautama, XII, 36, 44-47.

c8.65

⁴ Ibid., XII, 34-35.

c8.66

⁵ Ibid., XII, 31-32.

c8.67

Gautama’s precepts on taxation probably bear some relation to facts. The land-tax should be one-sixth, one-eighth or one-tenth of the gross produce.⁶ One-sixth was the standard fixed by Hindu theory in ancient India. It will appear that the land-tax was always supplemented by others. “Some declare that (there is a tax) also on cattle and gold, *viz.*, one-fiftieth of the stock.”⁷ On merchandise, 1/20th was to be paid as duty; on roots, fruits, flowers, medicinal herbs, honey, meat, grass and firewood, 1/60th.⁸ Besides, a merchant should give the king every month one article of merchandise for less than the market value.⁹ Even those who had nothing to give should make some contribution. Gautama wants every artisan to contribute a day's labour to the service of the king.¹ In addition to all this, treasure-trove should belong to the king.² The sources of revenue and the rates fixed are likely to have obtained in practice. Gautama, like all other Hindu writers, holds that the justification of taxation was the protection which the king afforded to all and sundry.³ This is probably a correct representation of the public feeling of those days but there was no constitutional means of enforcing the duty of protection.

c8.68

⁶ Ibid., X, 24.

c8.69

⁷ Ibid., X, 25.

c8.70

⁸ Ibid., X, 26-27.

c8.71

⁹ Ibid., X, 35.

c8.72

¹ Ibid., X, 31.

c8.73

² Ibid., X, 43.

c8.74

³ Ibid., X, 28.

c8.75

Miscellaneous duties of the State. Besides the protection and promotion of righteous life with which government is charged, Gautama prescribes specific relief measures which a king is likely to have undertaken in an informal manner. He must support needy students, Brâhmaṇas, Śrotriyas, all who are unable to work.⁴ A Hindu court might well have been a centre of charity.

c8.76

⁴ Ibid., X, 7–12.

c8.77

Baudhâyana. Many of the social and political ideas of Gautama are to be found in other Sûtra composers but the latter also present something peculiar to each. Baudhâyana's school belonged probably to the south, where much later, Sâyaṇa, the great Vedic commentator, was a member of it. A reference to sea-borne commerce points in the same direction.⁵ The fourth section of the Baudhâyana Dharma Sûtra is probably a late addition, while the date of the third is doubtful. The first two sections alone can be utilised for the Sûtra period. He preserves a record of the old theory of wergild which is likely to have been

c8.78

⁵ Baudhâyana, I, 10, 18, 14.

c8.79

Law and Justice.

c8.80

grounded partly in the facts of some remote epoch. For slaying a Kṣatriya one should give a thousand cows besides a bull; for slaying a Śūdra, ten cows and a bull. Then in priestly contempt of Śūdras, Baudhāyana adds that the fine for killing a flamingo, a pea-cock, a crow, an owl, a frog, a musk-rat, a dog, etc., etc., is the same as for killing a Śūdra.¹ Baudhāyana, however, knows of state courts and judges. He specifies three sources of law—the Vedas, Smṛitis or sacred tradition and the example of Śiṣṭas—personages who combine moral excellence with mastery of Vedic and subsidiary studies and powers of ratiocination. Failing them, doubtful points of law should be submitted to an assembly of ten, comprising four scholars, each a master of one of the four Vedas, a Mīmāṃsaka, a scholar acquainted with the Aṅgas, a reciter of the sacred law, and three Brāhmaṇas, belonging to three different orders. Failing such an assembly, points of law might be referred to five, three or a single blameless man but never to a thousand fools. A little later, however, he adds that narrow and difficult is the path of the sacred law, that many gates lead to it and that a doubt can never be resolved by a single person, "howsoever learned he may be."² Details apart, it is probable that a pariṣad or committee of this type was constituted to give what may be called a jurisconsultum. It might be dominated by priestly lawyers but its constitution would depend on the king, who could 'pack' it at will. It could form a machinery for what must be pronounced a species of legislative business. The sphere of any such body, however, would be strictly limited. Like others, Baudhāyana declares that local customs and opinions, varying in different regions, should be respected.³ As might be expected, caste privilege enters Baudhāyana’s judicial system at many points. He would exempt Brāhmaṇas from corporal punishment but he adds that Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, practise agriculture or who live as artizans, actors, usherers or servants should be treated as Śūdras. It will appear that the caste-law of occupations was often violated and that its violation sometimes implied a forfeiture of the privileges which it conferred.¹ Like Gautama, Baudhāyana summons witnesses and prescribes their qualifications, etc.²

c8.81

¹ Ibid., I, 10, 19, 1—6.

c8.82

² Ibid., I, 1, 1, 1—10, 12.

c8.83

³ Ibid., 1, 1, 1, 2, 1—9.

c8.84

¹ On the whole subject of caste and caste-privilege in Baudhāyana, see I, 10, 18, 2–6; I, 10, 18, 18–20; I, 10, 19, 1–5; I, 5, 10, 23–25; II, 6, 11, 12–16. In prescribing relaxations of these rules (II, 2, 4, 16–20), Baudhāyana contradicts himself.

c8.85

² Ibid., I, 10, 19, 7–16 *et seq.*

c8.86

Baudhāyana’s fiscial system deserves a word of notice. He prescribes one-sixth of the gross produce of the land as the due of the state. On goods imported by sea, a ten per cent. duty should be charged, “after deducting a choice article.” Here the theorist might be reproducing facts. He declares that the duties on marketable goods should be fixed according to their intrinsic value and that the traders should never be oppressed.³ It is probable that the state-demand varied from article to article.

c8.87

³ Baudhāyana, I, 10, 18, 1, 14-15.

c8.88

Turning to the law of war, Baudhāyana holds that no king should ever use barbed or poisoned weapons. Nor should he strike women, infants, old men, Brāhmaṇas, those who are insane, intoxicated, terrified or who have lost their armour. From this humanitarian rule, only assassins are excepted.⁴ The statement is interesting as the first clear Hindu view of the ethics of war but we cannot be sure that it represents practical politics.

c8.89

⁴ Ibid., I, 1, 10, 18, 10–13.

c8.90

The Dharma Sûtra of the Âpastambas, which forms the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth sections of the Âpastamba Kalpa Sûtra, seems to have arisen in the south,¹ probably in the Ândhra country. Âpastamba admits no absolute finality in law or morality. He confesses that ancient sages had transgressed the present code of morality and law but adds that they had incurred no sin "on account of the greatness of their lustre" and that none could follow them now with impunity.² It is clear that there was no permanent, immutable, universal law. It varied from time to time and, doubtless, from place to place. A few details of Âpastamba on kingly duties are interesting. The king should build a town with its gates looking towards the south. In the heart of the town should stand the royal palace with its gates facing the south. In front of it should be a hall, called the hall of invitation, a sort of guest-house. At a short distance towards the south should be erected an assembly-house, with doors on the north and south, to serve, *inter alia*, as a 'gaming-house' for the 'pure and truthful' members of the three higher castes. In the palace, in the hall and in the assembly house, fires should be kept burning and daily oblations offered.³ Here the law-giver is probably following some existing model. It is noteworthy that gambling was no sin in those days and was even provided for. The state looked more to the needs and amusements of Dvijas than to those of Śûdras.

c8.91

¹ Âpastamba, II, 17, 17, where he speaks of a practice of the Northerners in a way which only a Southerner would do.

c8.92

² Âpastamba, II, 6, 13, 8-10.

c8.93

³ Ibid., II, 10, 25, 2-13.

c8.94

Âpastamba makes it perfectly clear that a regular system of local government had grown up by his time. He mentions village and town-officers. The jurisdiction of a town-officer covers a radius of a yojana (nearly eight miles) and that of a village officer a radius of a kos, nearly two miles. Within the area of his jurisdiction, an officer should be responsible for order and security and should himself recompense unaccounted thefts. The officers, according to Āpastamba, should be drawn from the first three castes.¹ The injunction does not square with the strict theory of caste and is not likely to have found a place in a Dharma Sūtra if something like it had not been followed in actual practice.

c8.95

¹ Ibid., II, 10, 26, 6–8.

c8.96

Āpastamba's exemptions from taxation are interesting. Revenue. Brāhmaṇas, women, minors, students, ascetics, the blind, the deaf, the diseased, and Śūdras who live by washing the feet of others need pay nothing to the state.² The maxim may be based partly on facts. On the other hand, on failure of heirs, all property escheats to the king.³

c8.97

² Ibid., II, 10, 26, 10–17.

c8.98

³ Ibid., II, 6, 14, 5. For inheritance in general, II, 6, 14, 1–13.

c8.99

Āpastamba's disquisition on civil and criminal law is Law. as minute as that of the other legal writers, but there is no evidence to show which of his provisions are based on facts. It is safe to conclude that caste had vitiated jurisprudence and that the Śūdras fared worst of all.⁴ For the rest only a few maxims need be noted. Āpastamba would exact full damages from a man who does not cultivate his lease of land. If he is rich enough, he must be forced to pay to the state the value of the crop which should have reared on his fields.⁵ A servant in tillage who abandons his work shall be flogged.⁶ The same punishment should be awarded to a herdsman who forsakes his work.⁷ The flock entrusted to him shall be taken away.⁸ The owner of cattle may impound trespassing cattle.⁹ In warfare, Āpastamba prohibits the slaughter of fugitives, of those who ave surrendered, and of those who beg for mercy with flying hair or joined palms.¹ It may be mentioned in passing that the law-giver wants the king to support and protect women who had been cruelly wronged by wicked men.²

c8.100

⁴ Ibid., II, 10, 27.

c8.101

⁵ Ibid., II, 11, 28, 1.

c8.102

⁶ Ibid., II, 11, 28, 2.

c8.103

⁷ Ibid., II, 11, 28, 3.

c8.104

⁸ Ibid., II, 11, 28, 4.

c8.105

⁹ Ibid., II, 11, 28, 5.

c8.106

¹ Ibid., II, 5, 10, 11.

c8.107

² Ibid., II, 10, 26, 22–24. For a few other political ideas, I, 6, 19, 10–12; I, 7, 21, 4; I, 10, 29, 6.

c8.108

The Dharma Sûtra of Vasiṣṭha arose in the north. Long afterwards, Kumârila Bhaṭṭa stated that Vasiṣṭha was studied only by followers of the Ṛigveda but that it was generally recognised as authoritative. On caste, as on many other topics, he is in line with other Dharma Sûtras.³ He wants the king to enforce the provisions of caste, but he also lays down, like Gautama, that respect should be paid to all the laws of countries, castes and families.⁴ So not even in theory is social life to be regulated and controlled entirely by the state. For the king, Vasiṣṭha has the usual precepts. A Purohita is, of course, essential to the king's welfare.⁵ It is for fiscal arrangements that Vasiṣṭha is peculiarly valuable. The land-tax and mercantile tolls are to be supplemented by a monthly levy from artisans.⁶ “No taxes shall be paid on the usufruct of rivers, dry grass, forests (places of combustion) and mountains,⁷ or those who draw their sustenance from them may pay something.”⁸ The law-giver speaks with a divided voice but he gives a clear indication of certain fresh sources of revenue which a government is very likely to have tapped. The king is to provide maintenance to eunuchs and lunatics⁹ and inherit their property.¹⁰ In general, on failure of heirs, property goes to spiritual teachers or pupils; failing them, to the king.¹ Elsewhere he remarks that property entirely given up by the owner goes to the king.² The theorist would not allow the escheat of a Brāhmaṇa's property in any case but his very imprecations point to the breach of his precept in practice.³ He himself strongly objects to Brāhmaṇas subsisting by begging. "The king shall punish that village where Brāhmaṇas, unobservant of their sacred duties and ignorant of the Veda, subsist by begging, for it feeds robbers."⁴ To the list of exemptions from taxation given by Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha would add royal servants, wives of servants, young students, old men, unmarried girls, widows who have returned to parental homes and persons in general who have no protectors.⁵ On justice, warfare, diplomacy and other matters, Vasiṣṭha follows the traditional line. He would admit three kinds of proof in cases of property, viz., documents, witnesses and possession.⁶ In a dispute about a house or a field, the depositions of neighbours should be relied on.⁷ If they differ among themselves, documents should be resorted to.⁸ If the documents conflict with one another, the statements of the aged inhabitants of the place or of corporations should be decisive.⁹

c8.109

³ Vasiṣṭha, III, 24–25; I, 17; IV, 2; II, 40.

c8.110

⁴ Ibid., XIX, 7–8.

c8.111

⁵ Ibid., XIX, 3–5.

c8.112

⁶ Ibid., XIX, 28.

c8.113

⁷ Ibid., XIX, 26.

c8.114

⁸ Ibid., XIX, 27.

c8.115

⁹ Ibid., XIX, 35.

c8.116

¹⁰ Ibid., XIX 36.

c8.117

¹ Ibid., XVII, 81-83.

c8.118

² Ibid, XVI, 19.

c8.119

³ Ibid., XVII, 84-87.

c8.120

⁴ Ibid., III, 4.

c8.121

⁵ Ibid., XI X, 23-24.

c8.122

⁶ Ibid., XVI, 10.

c8.123

⁷ Ibid., XVI, 13.

c8.124

⁸ Ibid., XVI, 14.

c8.125

⁹ Ibid., XVI, 15.

c8.126

Miscellaneous. A few miscellaneous provisions may be noticed. From fields through which there is a right of way, a space sufficient for a path and another sufficient for turning a cart should be set apart.¹⁰ In the vicinity of new buildings there should be a passage about three feet in breadth.¹¹ The property of widows, minors, etc., should be administered by the king.¹²

c8.127

¹⁰ Ibid., XVI, 17.

c8.128

¹¹ Ibid., XVI, 12.

c8.129

¹² Ibid., XVI, 8-9.

c8.130

It is needless to notice the other Dharma Sûtras here. Viṣṇu, though in Sûtra form, is so heavily interpolated as to be a product of practically about the third century A.D. The Vaikhânasa Dharma Sûtra, which represents one of the younger offshoots of the Taittirîya school, cannot be earlier than the third century A.D. Besides, it is in its four praśnas, only a treatise on domestic law. The Dharma Sûtra of Hiraṇyakeśin closely follows the Âpastambas from which that school probably derived its origin. It yields nothing fresh to the student of institutions. The Mânava Dharma Sûtra is lost to us, though its ideas may be imbedded in the later Smṛiti of Manu. The Dharma Sûtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita is referred to by Kumârila,¹ and is said to have been specially studied by the Vâjasaneyins but it has not yet been discovered.

c8.131

¹ Kumârila Bhaṭṭa, Tantravârtika, p. 179.

Linked texts (15)