The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c16.s1.t2: a) The Doctrine of Mamatva (Property)

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c16.s1.t2

Language: English

a) The Doctrine of Mamatva (Property)

c16.s1.t2.1

According to the *Mahâbhârata*, *Manu Samhitâ*, *Śukra-nîti* and other texts of Hindu political theory, government is by nature coercive because man is by nature vicious. The state can thus be born only in and through *danda*, i. e. punishment or sanction. It is out of a condition of the "logic of the fish" (*mâtsya-nyâya*) or the Hobbesian and Spinozistic "state of nature", that *danda*³ brings into existence a well regulated civil society called the state. In Aristotelian terminology *danda* would 'se" o 'he state.

c16.s1.t2.2

How does it declare its exke itself "srating them, and people recognize it in its activities fostering their nurture. *Mamatva* and *dharma* are therefore two fundamental categories in the political speculation of the Hindus.

c16.s1.t2.3

Property does not exist in the non-state¹ (*mâtsya-nyâya*) i. e. in the condition of men left to the pursuit of their "own sweet will". In the non-state, of course, men can possess or enjoy, but they do not "own". Property, however, is not mere *bhoga* i. e. enjoying or possessing, its essence consists in *mamatva* or *svatva* i. e. ownership.² It is "one's own"-ness that underlies the "magic of property". To be able to say *mamedam*³ (This is mine) about something constitutes the very soul of owning or appropriation.

c16.s1.t2.4

This proprietary consciousness is created in men for the first time by the state through its sanction, the *danda*. For it enjoins⁴ that vehicles, apparel, ornaments, and jewels must be "enjoyed by those to whom they belong", and that one's wife, children, and food "must not be encroached upon by others." And it is only through *bhaya*⁵ or fear of the state that the people observe these injunctions, and the sanctity of property is kept entire.

c16.s1.t2.5

A distinction is here brought out between mere *bhoga* and *mamatva* as the basis of the difference between the non-state and the state. In Europe the identical discrimination has been made by Rousseau in his *Social Contract*. "In the state of nature," says he, "there is but possession which is only the effect of the force or right of the first occupant"; whereas "ownership which is founded only upon a positive title" is an incident of "civil society".

c16.s1.t2.6

Property (*bhoga* plus *mamatva*), then, is a *differentium* between the non-state and the state. And juridically speaking, the property taken cognizance of by the state is *laukika* i. e. worldly, material, or secular, as the *Mitâkṣarâ*, the *Sarasvatî-vilâsa*, and other law-books⁶ make it clear. Thus considered, it is necessarily a' a differ state and the extra-state, e. g. of Bliss in D "beiand a deer to him and jurisdiction in in common or private, it is pertinent to observe that the sacredness of property can be established only by the state through its *danda*.

c16.s1.t2.7

Two miraculous changes are effected in social life, once private property is thus ushered into existence. First, people can sleep at night without anxiety "with doors open."⁶ And secondly, women decked with ornaments may walk without fear though "unattended by men".⁷

Linked texts (1)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit