4,481
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 157:
Line 157: − + − KAMANDAKA v 82-83 (PP.63-64) − − − "</blockquote>Most of the kings were very conscious of their duties towards their subjects and did provide relief to the aggrieved against actions of their own officers or favourites. There is an illuminating case recorded in '''Rajatarangini''' as to how '''Chandrapida''', the king of Kashmir who reigned between 680-688 A.D. gave protection to a poor 'charmakara' (cobbler) from the intended action of his own officers. The gist of the case is related below.+ − If we who are the judges of what is right and what is not right, act unlawfully, who then will abide by the law ?' Truly, the supremacy of the law (Dharma) prevailed. With the aid of the law, a 'weak' charmakara prevailed over the - 'strong' the officers of the king. Thereafter, the charmakara got an audience with the king at his own request. He represented before the king thus: "What the palace is to Your Majesty, the hut is to me. I could not bear to see its demolition. You can very well appreciate the plight of a man who is deprived of his dwelling. However, if your majesty were to come to my hut and ask for it, I shall give it up having due regard to the code of good manners".+ − The king with all humility went to the charmakara's hut and with his consent purchased the hut by paying a price which was far more than he had expected and to his entire satisfaction. The charmakara then spoke with folded hands thus:'''''"'''''+ − jkt/kekZuqjks?ksu ijoÙkk roksfprkA LofLr rqH;a fpja LFks;k /kE;kZ o`ÙkkUri)fr%A+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − n'kZ;TMkhn`'kh% J)k J)s;k /keZpkfj.kkeÃA Rajatarangini: IV 75-77<blockquote>"'''''Yielding to another (however low), adhering to the principles of Rajadharrna, is the appropriate course for a king. I wish you well. May you live long, establishing the supremacy of the law (Dharma). Seeing in you such faith in Dharrna others will also act accordingly.'''''" − {| about="" !"The officers of The king undertook construction a temple Lord Tribuvanaswami On certain site. portion that site there was hut belonging to charmakara (cobbler). He refused remove his in spite being asked do so by king's officers. Thereupon complained obstinacy charmakara. However, their surprise, got rebuff from king, Who censured them for lack foresight encroaching upon and starting without taking consent. ordered thus:" fu;E;rka fofuekZ.ka ;}kU;="fo/kh;rkeÃ" ijHkwE;igkjs.k lqÑra d% dy3d;srÃA ;s nz"Vkj% lnlrka rs / keZfoxq.kk% fØ;k%A o;eso fon eÜpsr ;krq U;k;su dks· oukAA Rajatarangini IV -59-60"Stop or build (the temple) somewhere else. would tarnish such pious act illegally depriving man land? − |- − ! − |} − ==Conclusions== − What an inspiring example for upholding the rule of law by the suo-motu exercise of judicial power by the king and granting relief to a poor man against the arbitrary action of his own officers. How valuable is the commendation of a poor subject to the king compared to the sycophancy of selfish individuals. Today it is a matter of common knowledge, that many of the political rulers as also the officers lack in moral character, and they act on collateral considerations or take bribes from the citizens, either for exercising power in favour of the citizens, which they are in duty bound to exercise, or not to exercise power, though they are in duty bound to exercise such power in law. The people crave for protection against such rulers and officers of the state which is the cause of enormous increase in litigation against the state and its officers. Now it has become clear that unless a Dharma-abiding nature is ingrained in the individuals who exercise power of the state, either as ministers or elected representatives or as bureaucrats, the whole social fabric will be torn into pieces. It is only by the internal check in the form of Dharma, which can destroy sinful thoughts in the mind of the individuals who exercise state power and inspire them to serve the people, for which purpose they are elected or appointed. − ==References== − #M. RAMA JOIS, DHARMA - The Global Ethic, Published by "Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
→THE SUPREMACY OF DHARMA: Adding content - to be edited
==King Chandrapida and the Cobbler==
==King Chandrapida and the Cobbler==
'''Kamandaka''' called upon the kings to protect people against his favourites and officers.<blockquote>"vk;qDrdsH;'pkSjsH;% ijsH;ks jktoYyHkkrà i`fFkohifryksHkkPp iztkuka iŒp/kk Hk;eà iŒpizdkjeI;sr iksáa u`irsHkZ;eÃA
'''Kamandaka''' called upon the kings to protect people against his favourites and officers.<blockquote>आयुक्तकेभ्यश्चौरेभ्यः परेभ्यो राजवल्लभात् | पृथिवीपतिलोभाच्च प्रजानां पञ्चधा भयम् | पञ्चप्रकारमप्येत पोह्यं नृपतेर्भयम् ||</blockquote><blockquote>''āyuktakebhyaścaurebhyaḥ parebhyo rājavallabhāt | pr̥thivīpatilobhācca prajānāṁ pañcadhā bhayam | pañcaprakāramapyeta pohyaṁ nr̥paterbhayam || (Kamandaka 82-83)''</blockquote>Meaning: The subjects require protection against wicked officers of the king, thieves, enemies of the king, royal favourites (such as the queen, princes etc ), and more than all, against the greed of the king himself. The king should ensure that the people are free from these fears.
</blockquote><blockquote>"The subjects require protection against wicked officers of the king, thieves, enemies of the king, royal favourites (such as the queen, princes etc ), and
more than all, against the greed of the king himself. The king should ensure that the people are free from these fears.
Most of the kings were very conscious of their duties towards their subjects and did provide relief to the aggrieved against actions of their own officers or favourites. There is an illuminating case recorded in '''Rajatarangini''' as to how '''Chandrapida''', the king of Kashmir who reigned between 680-688 A.D. gave protection to a poor 'charmakara' (cobbler) from the intended action of his own officers. The gist of the case is related below.
The officers of the king undertook construction of a temple of Lord Tribuvanaswami on a certain site. On a portion of that site there was a hut belonging to a charmakara ( cobbler). He refused to remove his hut in spite of being asked to do so by the king's officers. Thereupon the officers complained to the king about the obstinacy of the charmakara. However, to their surprise, the officers got a rebuff from the king, who censured them for lack of foresight in encroaching upon the site belonging to the charmakara and starting construction without taking his consent. The king ordered thus:<blockquote>नियम्यतां विनिर्माणं यद्वान्यत्र विधीयताम् | परभूम्यपहारेण सुकृतं कः कलङ्कयेत् ||</blockquote><blockquote>ये द्रष्टारः सदसतां ते धर्मविगुणाः क्रियाः | वयमेव विदध्मश्चेत् यातु न्यायेन कोऽध्वना || (Rajatarangini 4.59-60)</blockquote><blockquote>''niyamyatāṁ vinirmāṇaṁ yadvānyatra vidhīyatām | parabhūmyapahāreṇa sukr̥taṁ kaḥ kalaṅkayet ||''</blockquote><blockquote>''ye draṣṭāraḥ sadasatāṁ te dharmaviguṇāḥ kriyāḥ | vayameva vidadhmaścet yātu nyāyena ko'dhvanā ||''</blockquote>Meaning:
Stop construction or build (the temple) somewhere else. Who would tarnish such a pious act by illegally depriving a man of his land?
If we who are the judges of what is right and what is not right, act unlawfully, who then will abide by the law ?
Truly, the supremacy of the law (Dharma) prevailed. With the aid of the law, a 'weak' charmakara prevailed over the - 'strong' the officers of the king.
Thereafter, the charmakara got an audience with the king at his own request. He represented before the king thus: "What the palace is to Your Majesty, the hut is to me. I could not bear to see its demolition. You can very well appreciate the plight of a man who is deprived of his dwelling. However, if your majesty were to come to my hut and ask for it, I shall give it up having due regard to the code of good manners.
The king with all humility went to the charmakara's hut and with his consent purchased the hut by paying a price which was far more than he had expected and to his entire satisfaction. The charmakara then spoke with folded hands thus:<blockquote>राजधर्मानुरोधेन परवत्ता तवोचिता | स्वस्ति तुभ्यं चिरं स्थेया धर्म्या वृत्तान्तपद्धतिः | दर्शयन्नीदृशीः श्रद्धा श्रद्धेया धर्मचारिणाम् || </blockquote><blockquote>''rājadharmānurodhena paravattā tavocitā | svasti tubhyaṁ ciraṁ stheyā dharmyā vr̥ttāntapaddhatiḥ | darśayannīdr̥śīḥ śraddhā śraddheyā dharmacāriṇām ||''</blockquote>Meaning: Yielding to another (however low), adhering to the principles of Rajadharrna, is the appropriate course for a king. I wish you well. May you live long, establishing the supremacy of the law (Dharma). Seeing in you such faith in Dharrna others will also act accordingly.
== Conclusion ==
What an inspiring example for upholding the rule of law by the suo-motu exercise of judicial power by the king and granting relief to a poor man against the arbitrary action of his own officers. How valuable is the commendation of a poor subject to the king compared to the sycophancy of selfish individuals.
Now it has become clear that unless a Dharma-abiding nature is ingrained in the individuals who exercise power of the state, either as ministers or elected representatives or as bureaucrats, the whole social fabric will be torn into pieces. It is only by the internal check in the form of Dharma, which can destroy sinful thoughts in the mind of the individuals who exercise state power and inspire them to serve the people, for which purpose they are elected or appointed.
== THE SUPREMACY OF DHARMA ==
Having evolved the concept of enforceability of the law through the institution of kingship, ancient Indian jurists proceeded to define the law. The law was recognised as a mighty instrument necessary for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Whenever the right or liberty of an individual was encroached upon by another, the injured individual could seek protection from the law with the assistance of the king, however, powerful the opponent (wrong doer) might be. The power of the king (state) to enforce the law or to punish the wrong doer was recognised as the force (sanction) behind the law which could compel implicit obedience to the law. After declaring how and why the Kshatra power (i.e.; the King) was created, the Brihadaranyakopanishat proceeds to state, finding that the mere creation of kingship was not enough, that the most excellent Dharma (law), a power superior to that of the king, was created to enable the king to protect the people, and gives the definition of law (Dharma) as follows:<blockquote>तदेतत्-क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रं यद्धर्मः | तस्माधर्मात्परं नास्ति | अथो अबलीयान् बलीयांसमाशंसते धर्मेण | यथा राज्ञा एवं ||</blockquote><blockquote>''tadetat-kṣatrasya kṣatraṁ yaddharmaḥ | tasmādharmātparaṁ nāsti | atho abalīyān balīyāṁsamāśaṁsate dharmeṇa | yathā rājñā evaṁ ||''</blockquote>Meaning: The law (Dharma) is the king of kings No one is superior to the law (Dharma) ; The law (Dharma) aided by the power of the king enables the weak to prevail over the strong.
Commenting on the above provision, Dr. S. Radha krishnan observes that even kings are subordinate to Dharma, to the Rule of law.2 The utility and the necessity of the power of king to enforce the law is explained thus:-<blockquote>सर्वो दण्डजितो लोको दुर्लभो हि शुचिर्नरः । दण्डस्य हि भयात्सर्वं जगद्भोगाय कल्पते । । ७.२२ । ।</blockquote><blockquote>''sarvo daṇḍajito loko durlabho hi śucirnaraḥ । daṇḍasya hi bhayātsarvaṁ jagadbhogāya kalpate । । 7.22 । ।''</blockquote>Meaning:
There is hardly an individual in this world, who on his own, is pure in his conduct.
The king's (sovereign's) power to punish, keeps the people in righteous path. Fear of punishment (by the king) yields worldly happiness and enjoyment.
One aspect discernible from the definition of 'law' given in the Brihadarayaka Upanishat and accepted in the Dharmasastras is, that the law and the king derive their strength and vitality from each other. It was impressed that the king remained powerful if he observed the law and the efficacy of the law also depended on the manner in which the king functioned, because it was he who was responsible for its enforcement. There was also a specific provision which made it clear to the king that if he was to be respected by the people, he was bound to act in accordance with the law. Thus the first and foremost duty of the king as laid down under Rajadharma was to rule his kingdom in accordance with the law, so that the law reigned supreme and could control all human actions so as to keep them within the bounds of the law. Though Dharma was made enforceable by the political sovereign -the king, it was considered and recognised as superior to and binding on the sovereign himself. Thus under our ancient constitutional law (Rajadharma) kings were given the position of the penultimate authority functioning within the four corners of Dharma, the ultimate authority.
Rules of Dharma were not altere able according to the whims and fancies of the king. The exercise of political power in conformity with "Dharma" was considered most essential. This principle holds good for every system of government and is a guarantee not only against abuse of political power with selfish motives and out of greed but also against arbitrary exercise of political power.
== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />