Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s2.t2: 2. Śrīkara

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s2.t2

Language
English

2. Śrīkara

c13.s2.t2.1

The tenth century saw several great works.⁶ The synthetic jurist Śrīkara (*c* 950) is the author perhaps of a commentary or of a Nibandha i.e. digest. He is said to have filled in the gaps of Smritis and established order out of chaos. He may have been greatly under the influence of Yājnavalkya. According to Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanītiratnākara* (ch. XV) Śrīkara had views on public law i.e. politics as well. He held that the revenues of the state have the poor and the helpless as some of their *amśī* (co-sharers or owners).

c13.s2.t2.2

⁶ Kane, pp. 238-239, 242, 268; See the *Rājanītiratnākara* by Chaṇḍesvara, ed. by K. P. Jayaswal (Patna 1924) pp. 40, 81.

c13.s2.t2.3

The doctrine quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara runs thus: *rājadhane dīnānāthādisakalaprāṇinām aṁśītvam*. The poor, the orphans, and all other creatures are *amśī* or co-sharers with the king in his wealth, property or revenues. It is on this argument that a state cannot be partitioned between the sons just as ordinary property can be (*Rājyam abibhājyam*). The recognition of this distinction between personal property and the state in a categorical manner marks a great progress in political thought. We touch the concept of an abstract political organism which is independent of dynasties, individual attributes and personal equations. The unknown or rather lost treatise of Śrīkara is thus to be credited with having propounded a tenet of major importance in the world’s political speculations.

c13.s2.t2.4

Then, again, the category, *amśitva* (co-sharership), as enjoyed by the poor etc., possesses a more than ordinary significance in speculative politics. It is something essentially distinct from the commonplace thought in constitution or public law which says that the king is the servant, benefactor or protector of the people. We are forced to understand that in point of civil law these enumerated classes are his equals or at any rate colleagues so far as the use of wealth, i.e. the state, is concerned. Naturally, therefore, it is possible to read something of socialistic “idealism” into this doctrine. Śrīkara the jurist, although interested in private law (e.g. the law of property) has made a tremendous contribution to public law by enunciating this dictum. It is worth repeating that Śrīkara is here not talking of ordinary charity, philanthropy or dole but of the *right of co-sharers* to the national revenues. It is understood, of course, that we find ourselves here not in *Realpolitik* but in speculation.

c13.s2.t2.5

It is on account of this doctrine of the distinction between the state and other properties that a definitely practical object in constitutional law can be served. The theorists do not want that the state should be inherited by anybody except the eldest son. The people who are not used to primogeniture in private law are likely not to appreciate it in public law. Hence the importance of the theory which establishes the socialistic copartnership of the masses in the affairs of the body politic.

c13.s2.t2.6

The doctrine of Śrīkara, which was handed down by Gopāla in his *Smṛiti-Kāmadhenu* (c 1100) and Lakṣmīdhara in his *Smṛiti-Kalpataru* (c 1159) and was considered important enough to be utilized by Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* (c 1370), has another part. It runs thus: *Vahunāyakatvādrājyavinaśaścha*. The state may be destroyed on account of the plurality of leaders or rulers. This is a fresh argument against the partition of the state among the king's sons on the lines of the partition of private property. Altogether Śrīkara's logic against the application of the ordinary law of inheritance to the state-affairs is the greatest single contribution of Hindu India to social science in the tenth century.

c13.s2.t2.7

The *Ṣaṭtriṁśanmata* (c 950) is a compilation from 36 sages. It appears to be older than the *Mitākṣarā*, *Smṛitichandrikā*, Aparārka and others.

c13.s2.t2.8

The *Smṛitisamgraha* (c 1000) is a collection between Viśvarūpa or Medhātithi and the *Mitākṣarā* or the *Smṛitichandrikā*. It may be taken to have flourished in king Bhoja's territory, Dhārā, and may have been compiled by or in the age of the king-jurist Bhoja Dhāreśvara.

c13.s2.t2.9

The eleventh century is very important in certain respects.⁷ Bhoja Dhāreśvara (c 1050), king of Dhārā, whose name is associated with works on the most diverse subjects like grammar, medicine, astronomy, politics (*Yuktikalpataru*) and so forth is known to have written commentaries, digests and even independent works on *Smriti*.

c13.s2.t2.10

⁷ Kane, pp. 258, 277, 279, 281, 290.

c13.s2.t2.11

Devasvāmin's (c 1050) *Smritisamuchchaya*, a digest like that by Śrīkara, was composed during the age of Vijnāneśvara.

Linked texts (4)