ASPECTS OF DHARMA Ethics Law and Action in Indian Tradition

ASPECTS OF DHARMA Ethics Law and Action in Indian Tradition Sunil Sondhi To cite this version: Sunil Sondhi. ASPECTS OF DHARMA Ethics Law and Action in Indian Tradition: Ethics Law and action in Indian Tradition. 2023. ฀hal-04188649฀ HAL Id: hal-04188649 https://hal.science/hal-04188649 Preprint submitted on 26 Aug 2023 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés. ASPECTS OF DHARMA Ethics Law and Action in Indian Tradition Sunil Sondhi Tagore National Fellow Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts Abstract The idea of legal culture and tradition has an important place in major recent debates about the nature and aims of law. The concept of legal culture means that law should be treated as embedded in the broader culture of society. In a sense, law is culture. Concept of legal culture encompasses much more than the professional juristic realm. It refers to a more general consciousness or experience of law that is widely shared by those who constitute a nation. Culture is fundamental — a kind of lens through which all aspects of law must be perceived, or a gateway of understanding through which we must pass so as to have any genuine access to the meaning of law in society. Cultural concepts of law that emerge out of the several frames of reference in the veda, upanisad, epics, dharmasastra, the republican governments in ancient India, and the constituent assembly debates enable us to view the law in India in an integrative perspective that is closer to Indian cultural tradition and practice. The innovative value of historical and sociological approach lies in its unifying vision of the theological, cultural and positivist aspects of the concepts of law in Indian tradition. A holistic concept of law including both legal and moral perspectives seems to provide a more realistic picture of Indian legal culture and tradition. A juridical system that does not correspond to the social and cultural sensitivities of a society can not be owned by the people as their system but will be seen as something foreign and imposed. Without a conducive social and cultural conceptualization mere formal law cannot create willing legal and moral obligation and practice. Introduction There has been a general belief among both scholars and laymen that law is a special mechanism for establishing social order isolated from other social mechanisms and, for this reason, that the scientific study of law should be confined to the special capacity of positive legal jurisprudence. While positivism was a great advance over natural law and was suited to modern industrial society, it had a great defect that it only studied the form, structure, concepts etc. in a legal system. It was of the view that study of the social and economic conditions and the historical background which gave rise to the law was outside the scope of jurisprudence, and belonged to the field of sociology. (Chiba p.1) [1] However, unless we see the historical background and social and cultural circumstances which give rise to a law it is not possible to correctly understand it. Every law has a certain historical background and it is heavily conditioned by the social and cultural system prevailing in the country. The flaw in positivism therefore was that it reduced jurisprudence to a merely descriptive science of a low theoretical order. There was no attempt by the positivist jurists, like in sociological jurisprudence, to study the historical and socio-cultural factors which gave rise to the law. Positivism reduced the jurisprudence to a very narrow and dry subject which was cut-off from the historical and social realities. Thus it deprived the subject of jurisprudence of flesh and blood. (Menski, p.12). The cultural relativism approach that emerged in social sciences in the twentieth century in the wake of Einstein’s theory of relativity, and the uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg, argues that a society’s beliefs and practices should be understood based on that society’s own culture. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, major proponents of cultural relativism, argue that the norms and values of one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of the other. Another way of saying this is that many features of human experience are entrenched or embedded in cultural conceptualizations. Cultural relativism offers both a theoretical and an analytical framework for investigating cultural conceptualizations that underlie the social and cultural practices and institutions. At the heart of the theoretical framework of cultural relativism is the notion of cultural cognition, which affords an integrated understanding of the notions of “knowledge” and “culture” as they relate to social practices. (Einstein, 1982; Heisenberg, 1989; Capra, 2015; Glen, 2010; Mukerjee, 2005). The popular negligence of the cultural factor of law may have been partly caused by the alleged universal nature of traditional jurisprudence, prevailing as in the western science of law in the world. Contemporary Western jurisprudence is indeed established on a universal basis. Its overwhelming prevalence in the world seems to leave little room either for serious consideration of its cultural specificity or for doubt as to its applicability to the different cultural specificities of other countries. Contemporary Western jurisprudence is a product of long Western history and is coloured by a Western culture based on the Hellenistic and Christian view of man and society. The universalistic achievements of Western jurisprudence hides its cultural specificity. That specificity may have been in some cases diffused by or assimilated into different specificities of different cultures, but in other cases it has conflicted with or been rejected by them. In all cases, Western jurisprudence, convinced of its illusion of universality, does not pay due attention to the cultural problems which accompany such diffusion or conflict between Western specificity and non-Western specificities. (Chiba, p.2). The point is that the whole structure of law of a people is not limited to the monistic system of state law as maintained by Western jurisprudence in accordance with methodological postulates of legal positivism. The whole structure of law as an aspect of culture includes all regulations, however apparently different from state law, which [2] the people concerned observe as law in their cultural tradition, including value systems. The very cultural identity of a people demands that we include all of them in a whole structure. Thus, the whole structure of law is plural, consisting of different systems of law interacting with one another harmoniously or conflictingly. (Chiba, p.4) At the same time it is true that the peoples and scholars of non-Western countries who have cherished their own jurisprudence with specificities quite different from the Western, have not succeeded nor even attempted to present the achievements of their jurisprudence before the world circle of legal science forcibly enough to cause the proponents of Western jurisprudence to doubt their conviction of its universality. Without presenting the achievements of their own jurisprudence before world bodies specifically aimed at self-reflection of model jurisprudence, they would be disqualified from criticizing the ethnocentricity of the latter, as recently pointed out by some Western scholars. (ibid. p.2) Such a negative or passive attitude may be another reason why Western jurisprudence has in general disregarded the jurisprudence of different cultures - jurisprudence with due respect to indigenous legal cultures in non-Western countries. Vital to the proper understanding of law in non-Western culture is, firstly, for scholars to present their own data and views positively in order not to negate the significance of western jurisprudence, but to maintain a sound understanding of its nature when utilized in different cultures. (ibid.) Many Western scholars and their Indian followers with their apemanship and parrotry, vigorously refuse to accept the indigenous identity of law in India, primarily because their assumptions about ‘law’ differ from the internal categories of dharmic law. The main problem that arises in connection with understanding dharmic law, has been the regular attempt – by insiders as well as outsiders - to deny that this important legal system actually has its own capacity for internal modernisation. Dharmic law is much more than state law and thus it explicitly rejects the usefulness of legal positivism as an analytical tool for understanding the actual complexity of dharmic law. The projected decline and virtual abolition of dharmic law is nothing but a constructed myth that has served certain purposes and modernist agenda – and continues to do so with much persuasion - but can not defeat the social, cultural and legal realities of over a billion Indians in India. The assertion that law is simply the law of the sovereign State misses the point that the law gets its meaning from the intersection of legal and various other social systems of meaning. Law like any other institution of society is interconnected with other institutions. The task of legal scholars therefore, is to recognise the connections between the law and social, political and cultural systems. The interdisciplinary study of law must mean that it brings the knowledge of the legal doctrine and analyzes it in the context of the knowledge of other disciplines. In doing so it carries the responsibility to try and achieve social justice for all. Despite the never-ending debates about modernisation and secularism in India, dharmic law, governing the social majorities of India’s population, has continued to play a key role in the development of the state legal apparatus and will continue to do so. It does not matter whether [3] scholars like this or not. (Derrett, 1957, 1968; Davis, 2010; Jois, 2022; Lingat, 1998; Menski, 2003; Lariviere, 1984). Dharma, the foundation upon which all life is based in India, is immeasurably more than 'religion'; mistakenly one has been taken to be the other. The Indian mind did not think in terms of contesting polarities of the either/or kind. It would be yet another misunderstanding if the statement that dharma is profoundly social is taken to mean that it is for that reason anti-religion, or that it has concern with other human beings in the form of legal accountability alone. The social nature of dharma lies in the fact that all Indian explanations of man are evidently located in man himself, in the very structure of his being. It is that which binds one human being with another. The ethical foundations, and the limits of one human being's conduct towards another, are already inherent in man's being, in the force of dharma. (Agarwal 1979; Altekat, 1954; Jois, 1996; Swain, 2003) In modern times, when secularism is upheld as an ideal and religion has been separated from politics such a linkage may appear far-fetched. The Indian view is different. Morality, to have effective force in practice must be based on rules of cosmic order. The unruly conditions of the modern world could have been avoided if dharmic values had been upheld, and personal, social and national behavior had been harmonized with the complex adaptive system running through the history of cosmic creation. Dharma can be comprehended by its application in daily life, by the consideration of the diverse form it takes, by its effects both visible and invisible, the empirical evidence behind it, and and the occasion for its use and or application. Dharma stands for natural law, civil and moral law, justice, virtue, merit, duty, morality and quality. (Aiyangar, 2018, p.62; Sastry, 2005; ). The study of dharmic law has been neglected in the decades since independence due to a combination of declining knowledge of its classical foundations and the pressures of modern political correctness, to the effect that studying dharmic law is often seen as a regressive activity. Anything ‘Indian’ is therefore quickly dismissed in many ways, by those who imagine and assert that a modern world, by which is often meant a Western-inspired world, can do without so-called primitive religious and cultural traditions. They have conveniently forgotten that the so-called modern western traditions have their own roots in Western cultural and religious traditions. So how can India be called upon to ‘modernise’, if that means giving up the social and cultural concepts that make up the fabric of the Indian identity? Since dharmic law has always been a reflection of the way of life of millions of very diverse people, what was abolished by the formal law was manifestly only a fragment of the entire field and of the social reality of dharmic law. The conceptual framework and the entire customary social structure of Indian culture, remained largely immune to the powerful wonder-drug of legal modernisation which had been administered in measured doses since well before 1947 and was again used during the 1950s and decades thereafter. Something as complex as Hindu personal law could not be reformed away and ultimately abolished by statute, nor could its influence as a legal normative order that permeates the entire socio-legal Indian field simply be legislated [4] away. Dharmic law has always been a people’s law, whether or not the state wished to see it that way. Despite enormous internal changes, dharmic law as a conceptual entity has remained an integral part of the living and lived experience of all Indians. Nature of Dharma In the context of Indian knowledge tradition, there has been no misunderstanding more serious in nature than the supposition that Indian culture was fundamentally 'religious', in the sense in which the words 'religion' and 'religious' have been used in the West for centuries. These imply a belief in one exclusive God as the creator of the universe, an exclusive book containing the life and the sayings of that messenger of God, a separate code of commandments, a conclusive corpus of ecclesiastical laws to regulate thought and behaviour in the light of these, and a hierarchy of priesthood to supervise that regulation and control and promote proselytization. The Indian concept of dharma means none of these. It is to this confusion that we can trace most of the Western misconceptions of Indian society, culture and law. Many of Indian political and legal institutions continue to be founded upon such misconceptions which are often the source of the social and political problems that the people of India face today. The assumptions underlying Western law and jurisprudence at different stages of its development were radically different from the assumptions of traditional Indian law and jurisprudence. But it was the Western political and legal philosophy founded on the rights of the individual that dominated the constitution-making in India. The divorce of the Indian people from Indian law jurisprudence has proved harmful for social cohesion in the country. Dharma means much more than what is commonly understood by religion. While there is something in the very nature of semitic religion which is divisive, conclusive and exclusive, dharma is inclusive, open and it unites. Religion excludes all that it is not in a particular faith, dharma includes every form and view of life. Religion often makes claims that are not based on experience, the claims of dharma are the claims of life and science. Religion and politics must necessarily be separated for a safe and sane world, dharma assumes that legal and political thought and practice must necessarily have its basis morality and ethics. Dharma provides comprehensive guidance to regulate human conduct in accordance with the given system of cosmic creation and fulfill the purpose of one’s life. The whole life of a person, considered both as a an individual and as a member of social groups, as well as a person’s relationship with fellow individuals, to the other living beings, to cosmic reality generally and to one’s conceptions of God come within the purview of the concept of dharma. Among the duties that it lays down are both self-regarding and other-regarding, those to the living, those yet to be born and those no longer alive. As past, present and future are interconnected in Indian tradition, human relations too extend in time both backward and forward and to the whole environment. In the cosmic system of creation, large and small, and crucial and trivial are not determined according to human standards. A particle of sand on the sea shore is no less significant [5] than the stars and galaxies in the space. From the point of view of the purview of the dharmasastra, the small details of the yagya are as important as the details of everyday life, and the public and social relations. The term dharma is most distinctive and inclusive in many ways. It is a word well understood and frequently used aptly by common people and yet found impossible to give a straight forward definition by the scholars. It is a word which signifies the law and force of regulation behind the movement of planets, stars and galaxies and yet also signifies duty of any person in human society. It is a word which is explained as the unseen cause behind rhythm and rhyme of the universe and is also explained as the unseen cause for the social behavior of a person not to hurt any another person. It is a word to explain which several hundreds of books of Dharmasastras, Puranas and Itihasas were written and yet which remains ambiguous and uncertain. It is a word which signified such principles, every one of which, at one time or the other, is clearly violated by people and yet such violation is also cited to be signified by it. It is a word which signified, at one and the same time, the universal principles and the sectarian principles. It is a word which defies any attempt to translate it into any other language both Indian and non-Indian. (Sastri, p. 74). According to the Sanskrit grammar of Panini, the word dharma is etymologically a derivative form from root dhri of, which means either to sustain, or to uphold, or to support or to wear. Most of the commentators explaining this word show its etymology as a principle which sustains the entire cosmos or a principle upheld by the people at large. A thorough understanding of the etymology of the term dharma helps us to understand its basic underlying character which runs through the several shades of meanings it expresses. The sharp and enlightened intuitive mind of Indian sages of ancient times was able to see an underlying power and principle behind the order and rhythm of the cosmos, seasons, the planets and their movement, the day and the night, the behavior of the animal kingdom and humans and, for that matter, behind every thing and process in nature. Indian sages understood that it is that power and that principle which enabled the order and rhythm to continue in the cosmos and on earth. They named it dharma on the basis of its etymology 'dharati lokan iti' (dharma because it sustains and holds up the worlds). Seen from this point of view, it seems very clear what dharma is and what is its nature: but, it eludes definite grasp since it is an abstract idea. They also grasped the exclusive characteristics and the principle responsible for the existence and sustenance of each and every minute component of the nature around us and named them also as dharma for obvious reasons of etymological significance of the term. This dynamic principle which sustains the worlds and their order was first termed as rta in the Vedic literature. Varuna is said to be the god of the rta. He is well known as the law-giver and as the god of the order of the cosmos and the seasons. Hence, the term rta meant the order of the worlds in the Vedic literature. The intuitive mind of sages did not stop with the apprehension of this dynamic principle dharma. It saw yet another still basic and still fundamental principle which is unchangeable in its nature [6] because of which the changeable regulative principle dharma continued its sway. It is termed as satya. (ibid.). Realization of Brahman is the liberation (moksha) whereas rigorous and meticulous observance of dharma leads to the orderly well-being of the individual, society and the world at large. Realization of Brahman, obviously, is of the nature of jnana whereas observance of dharma is of the nature of karman. Thus, the entire life, activity and the ends of the individual, society and the world as a whole is placed between these two higher goals, dharma on one side and rta on the other. Such life, activity and the ends of the individual, the society and the world as a whole is divided into two categories, namely, artha and kama. Thus result four purusharthas, four ends of humanity, namely, dharma, artha, kama and moksha. It may be noticed that artha and karma are fixed in between dharma and moksha thus making a hint that artha and kama are purusharthas so long only as they do not violate the principles of dharma and remain congenial to rta. Thus says Bhagavan Srikrishna that he is of the nature of such kama which does not violate dharma. Thus, the life is put in between karma and Brahman. Though the understanding of the nature of dharma appears to be very clear and simple on the basis of understanding the etymology of the term dharma, it is too complicated and elusive on account of the fact that its meaning cannot be uniform and fixed but countlessly varied. Though it is one in its essential nature, it is fluid and varied in its details. That is why dharma is the concept which was discussed at length in Indian thought. On account of the varied nature of the details of the principle dharma, the term came to have several meanings. The meanings are so varied and diverse in their nature that they could not be brought under any single classification and hence the difficulty of defining the term. Dharma is used in so many senses that it eludes definition. It stands for nature, intrinsic quality, civil and moral law, justice, virtue, merit, duty and morality. The center of authority in so far as defining dharma is concerned, which originally rested in the Sruti, gradually shifted from Sruti to Smriti, from Smriti to Sadachara or Custom, and then to the Nibandhas or law digests. That this is not a conjecture but a fact recognized by the highest circles of society in India is proved by the declaration of Parasara to the effect that the dharmas for men in the satyayuga are other than those in the Treta and the Dvapara, and in the Kaliyuga also they are different-the dharma of each Yuga being in keeping with the distinctive character of that age and the capacity of the people. Similar declaration is to be found in Manusmriti. (Jha, p.21). Apart from the etymology, we have yet another source to grasp the meaning of the term dharma. For our great advantage, the term is frequently used in all the divisions of Sanskrit literature starting from the earliest work the Rigveda. By analyzing the contextual meaning where it is used, we can grasp its meaning in a better way. P.V. Kane, the doyen of the studies in dharmasastra has exactly used this method. According to him, the term dharma is used: [7] 1) In the sense of 'upholder or supporter or sustainer. 2) It is used in the sense of 'religious ordinances and rites. 3) It is used in the sense of 'fixed principles or rules of conduct.' 4) It is used in the sense of 'merit acquired by the performance of religious rites. 6) It is used in the sense of yugadharmas, asramadharma. Kane remarks in conclusion that the foregoing brief discussion establishes how the word dharma passed through several transitions of meaning and how ultimately its most prominent significance came to be the privileges, duties and obligations of a man, and his ethical action as a person in a particular stage of life and society and a member of particular section of society. (Kane, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp.1-4) The above analysis of etymology, usage and definitions of the term dharma confirms the view that though it is easy to comprehend the essence, it is rather difficult to define. The vast varieties of its meaning cannot be brought under one umbrella. Dharma is more than mere laws, for it is what underlies law and creates law in the universe. Basic to dharma is the view of order or law pervasive in the dynamic universe. Another interesting aspect of dharma is that it is divided into several divisions such as sadharna dharma (general dharma) and vishesh dharma (particular dharma) sanatana dharma (eternal dharma) apada dharma including apad dharma (emergency dharma) so on and so forth. On account of this, what is dharma under one division is perceived not to be so under another division. Non-injury (ahimsa) which is one of the important component of sanatana dharma is quite often violated by the warriors and others under various circumstances. Yet, such violation also came to be recognized as dharma. Thus the entire exercise of the Bhagavadgita is to induce Arjuna to wage a war which is considered to be the highest dharma. Hence, dharma is neither uniform nor absolute nor static according to Hindu tradition. It varies from situation to situation, age to age, caste to caste so on and so forth. That is why it is to be judged very carefully. Several books such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and numerous Puranas came into being precisely to explain the complexity of dharma. They declared that the ways of dharma are, indeed, hard to comprehend. However, it is interesting to note that the etymological meaning of the term holds good, in each and every minute shade of the meaning of the term dharma. Sanatana dharma and sadharana dharma are dharmas on account of their role in sustaining the humanity and its values. Varna dharma are also perceived to be the upholding principles to sustain that particular caste or asrama. The apada dharma, which often appears to be a violation of dharma, is also aimed at sustaining the community or humanity when it is closely observed. Thus, a common definition to all sorts of [8] dharmas is possible only on the basis of its etymology, however loose such definition may be. Hence, it is said, that dharma is called dharma because it sustains and upholds the individual, society and the world at large. It is usually said' there is an exception for every law'. It holds good with regard to dharma also. Humanity is so large and complex in nature that no universal law can be made to bring an order into it. Hence, it is necessary to identify certain values of life to be values of very high order and universally applicable at all given points of time. Ahimsa (non-injury) satya (truth) asteya (non-stealing) etc. are such dharmas that no one would contend their position and relevance at any given time. But, within the framework consisting of such principles, we have to make provision for their violation also, so as to suit the exigencies of context. Such provisions are called visheshadharmas. For example himsa is unavoidable for fisherman, for butchers, for warriors, and for Brahmins also during sacrifices. For all of these, to fulfill their occupational obligation himsa becomes unavoidable. Hence, vishesha dharma prevails over the sadharna dharma. Further, if visesa dharma does not prevail over sadharna dharma, it looses its application in all cases, and as a consequence, it looses its significance being codified as dharma. Arrangements (vyavastha) towards social cohesion keep on changing according to the necessities of the society in changing times. If we carefully study the texts of dharma sastras in a historical perspective, it is evident that these details of varna dharma went on changing periodically. In the light of the spirit of the dharma sastras, there is every scope for throwing out the existing arrangement, and bringing in a new one provided such new arrangement should satisfy the sense of the term dharma and should result in sustaining the society and social order. New arrangements or restructuring require people who are totally disinterested and detached from the bondages of society; who keep a distance from it and yet have an in-depth vision of humanity and its welfare; whose minds are not influenced by temporary, contextual, socio-politico-economic exegencies. We need people who are insightful architects to build such a new social order. Spirit of Dharma The Vedic texts give a reasonably clear picture of the world views of the Vedic sages, of their ideas about man’s place in the world, in particular of the Vedic conceptualization of ṛta as macrocosmic order. Herein, then, lies the importance of the Vedas as a source of ‘law’ or rather of dharma. They elucidate the early conceptual underpinnings of Vedic law which are absolutely central for understanding the emerging legal system as a whole. The central point appears to be that ‘law’ is an entity beyond direct human control. It exists, and yet does not claim institutional loyalty, as a state legal system would do. Vedic sages and scholars realized the overarching presence of rta, an invisible cosmic law that held together in order a complex and adaptive system at different levels, forms, and phases of all the objects and processes that comprised the cosmos. All the [9] forms of being existing and developing in harmony within an interconnected web of relationships were seen as organized in a system which integrated all the parts into an undivided whole in flowing movement. The cosmic order which extended to all levels of existence from the infinite to the infinitesimal was seen as inviolable, never to be broken, even by the Vedic divinities who were in fact considered as the guardians of ṛ t a. (Khanna, 2004; Satprakashananda, 2022; Menski, p.90). Īśa Upaniṣad brings out the systemic aspect of cosmic order most succinctly and clearly. It says that the Absolute Reality is both universal and particular. The creation of the particular from the universal does not affect the integrity of the universal. The principle or quality of wholeness and integration is prior to the principle of particular and diversity. Oneness becomes many in the image of the oneness. That is whole, this is whole, taking out a particular whole from the absolute whole leaves the absolute whole integrated and creative as before. Every particular entity has to be an integrated whole to maintain its identity amongst an integrated system of infinite entities. The wholeness or integrity of each part is the bedrock of the wholeness of the universe and the order of the cosmos, and the order of the cosmos is the bedrock of the wholeness of the particular. (Radhakrishnan, 2017, pp. 565-578). Ṛta is the principle whereby the Absolute Reality becomes manifest and perceptible to human senses. In Ṛg Veda it is said that, 'heaven and earth exist in close unison in the womb of ṛ t a'. (Ṛg Veda, 10.65). Ṛta, thus, is the one single system that embraces the cosmic order. The concept of ṛ t a explains the course of the evolution and sustenance of the natural and human world in terms of rhythm, time cycle, seasons, and biological growth. It refers to three basic elements of birth, growth, and transformation as the components of the complex cosmic system which functions according to its own selforganizing principles and law. Scholars, scientists, and poets in all ages have always found it amazing that the Absolute Reality is so well-ordered. In a landmark Supreme Court judgement, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar called this ‘great world rhythm’ one of the basic concepts of Hindu philosophy. (1966 SCR (3) 242). The early key concept of ṛta metamorphosed gradually into dharma which may be understood as microcosmic order or duty, the central dharmic legal term, which in one form or another underlies and suffuses all the later texts. Dharma became clearly the core concept of Vedic tradition, and thus of Vedic law. Its relevance in legal terms can be explained quite simply in that life is seen as a complex experiential reality, in which everybody and everything has a role to play and is visibly and invisibly interconnected in a giant systemic network of cosmic dimensions, a kind of universal spider’s web. Individual roles and obligations are, of necessity, quite disparate for different people; they depend on contextual factors like gender, age, or place in society. Dharma as a central legal concept thus suggests unlimited plurality at the level of social reality within a dharmic systems theory that defies rational deconstruction. Ṛta is a multidimensional concept which is connected to other fundamental concepts like brahma, atma, dharma, and satya,in the Veda, Epics, Upaniṣads and the Dharmaśāstra. In its most fundamental sense, ṛ t a is the law, order, system, harmony [10] underlying all natural phenomena. Ṛta is the all-pervasive universal order that is same at all levels of existence, and the objective world is the expression of that order. The field of ṛ t a is physical, mental, spiritual, and ethical. Nature as it is known to us is not seen as a chaotic occurrence of events and objects. While it may appear as random and disorganized, the fundamental processes of nature that underlie all objective, and subjective realms too, function as a complex system in which all parts are coordinated and integrated into a larger whole. Indian conceptualizations of ṛ t a, dharma, and satya are not comparable with Western principles in the sense that they provide specific ethical permissions or prohibitions. Truth in the Western sense is the sum of what can be isolated and counted, it is what can be logically accounted or what can be proved to have happened, or what one really means at the moment when one speaks. While the Indian conception of satya is marked by an inner realization of the wholeness of reality, the Western view of truth is better described in English dictionaries as truthfulness or veracity of individual explicit statement. In Indian tradition, on the other hand, truth is defined in Mahābhārata when it says, 'Satya is dharma, tapas (austerity) and yoga. Satya is eternal brahma, Satya is also the foremost yagya, and everything is established on Satya', (Mahabharata, V, p.497). In an illustration of this principle, Mahābhārata says that the spirit of dharma exists in the khadga (sword) also. The khadga or sword is a creation of Brahma for the purpose of protection and sustenance of the people according the principles of dharma. It takes the form of verbal, material, physical or death penalty for those who consciously violate the principles of dharma for their own selfish ends. (ibid. p. 512). The concepts of rta and dharma are of great significance in the ethical and legal tradition of the Vedas. It is the anticipation of the law of karma, one of the distinguishing characteristics of Indian legal thought. It is the law which pervades the whole world, which all gods and men must obey. If there is law in the world, it must work itself out. If by any chance its effects are not revealed here on earth, they must be brought to fruition elsewhere. Where law is recognized, disorder and injustice arc only provisional and partial. The triumph of the wicked is not absolute. The shipwreck of the good need not cause despair. (Radhakrishnan, p.80). The ideal is envisaged as a fluid ordered universe, or a complex adaptive system, in macrocosmic as well as microcosmic dimensions, in which every element of that giant cosmic order simply does what is most appropriate. In other words, the Vedic conceptualization of order reflects a kind of ecologically sound symbiosis in which every component part plays its proper role. But this is merely the conceptual ideal: real life is a never-ending chain of contradictions, role conflicts, and processes to ascertain specific duties. It can also be viewed as a struggle to find one’s path, especially later in the more individualistic contexts of realization-centred beliefs. Dharma implies the spirit or the principle of relationship that holds man and the universe firm, and in its practical application means the essential quality or virtue of a thing or person. For instance, breath is the essential quality and spirit of life, although [11] in certain stages it may not be apparent. Through adharma (the negation of dharma) man may prosper, gain what appears desirable, conquer enemies through brute force, but in this process humanity perishes at the roots. The principle of life is truer for humanity than the objective fact of physical life which is transient. Humanity is the dharma of human beings, it is an obligation not a claim. Dharma is the unifying principle of interrelationship which integrates the individuals in creative coordination with the society and nature. The spirit of dharma exists beyond space and time but it creates and sustains objects and processes that can be located in time and space. Dharma is man’s relation to that which he regards as sacred or whole. This relationship may be conceived in a variety of forms. Although moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are commonly constituent elements of the religious life, worship is generally accepted as the most basic and universal element. Worship is man’s reaction to his experience of the sacred power; it is a response in action, a giving of self, especially by devotion and service, to the transcendent reality upon which man feels himself dependent. In the Vedic world, to practice dharma also means performing yagya. In yagya, like dharma, we connect to integrate. We contribute in order to increase the social and individual good. Like dharma, Yagya is man’s personal attempt to communicate with the transcendent and immanent reality in thought and action. Yagya is not a phenomenon that can be reduced to rational or literal terms; it is fundamentally a religious act that establishes a relationship between man and the social and sacred order. For many people in India, throughout time, yagya has been the very heart of their religious life. More pointedly for a legal analysis, awareness of ṛta and dharma involved a continuous process of harmonizing individual expectations with concern for the common good, a constant obligation to ascertain the appropriate balance between individual and society, good and bad, right and wrong, the permissible and the prohibited. Vedic law, in other words, is from the start based on a complex and continuous interactive process (Derrett, 1968, p.2–3). Much of this remains invisible and internalized, a truth later brought out forcefully in the dramatic illustrations of the great epics, which can be seen as ancient tools for teaching ‘order’ in every sense of the word. Rule of Dharma To the question whether there was a rule of law prevalent in ancient India, evidence for a resoundingly affirmative answer is borne out by the great epic texts. The message of these texts is clear that the King was not above the law. Sovereignty was based on an implied social compact and if the King violated this traditional pact, he forfeited his kingship. It refutes the view that the kings in ancient India were despots who could do as they pleased without any regard for the law or the rights of their subjects. Coming to the historical times of the Mauryan Empire, Kautilya described the duties of a king the Arthasastra in the following terms, “In the happiness of his subjects lies the King’s [12] happiness; in their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases him he shall not consider as goof, but whatever pleases his people, he shall consider as good.”’ (Nazeer, p.7) One of the most distinguishing aspects as between the concept of the law as defined in the Western jurisprudence and that as defined in Dharmasastras is that whereas the imperative command of the king constituted the law according to the former, under the concept of dharma, the law was a command even to the king and was superior to the king. This meaning is brought out by the expression 'the law is the king of kings'. The doctrine 'the king can do no wrong' was never accepted in ancient Indian constitutional system. Tirukkular , says that a king is assured of heavenly status if he makes the wrongdoer feel the weight of falling sengol, provided the light of justice is hidden in that blow of sengol. (Tirukkular, 57). Another aspect discernible from the definition of 'law' given in the Brihadarayaka, Upanishad 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 dharmasastra was to rule his kingdom in accordance with the dharmic 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 Indian 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 alterable 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. The most rigid enforcement of obligations and duties form, side by side with the most lavish grant of rights and privileges to, both the governor and the governed explain the seeming inconsistency and paradox that characterise the dharmasastra, and the great complementarity between the theoretically despotic and the practically democratic features of the political organisation. This is a sound political maxim and is based on the observation of the fact that the peoples’ interests and opinions do in most cases differ, and insightful decision making is required at the political. Random scattering of the public opinion requires mediation and guidance from the government. (Sukraniti, p.51). In deciding upon measures the king should be guided by the truth ‘voice of people is voice of god’. Thus though the king is himself a god, the god of the king is the people. The king has been described in dharmasastra as their servant getting remuneration [13] for his work. The peculiar dualism and intergration in the king’s position have been very unhesitatingly indicated in the Sukraniti. (ibid.). The king is a god no doubt, but Dharmasastra do not consider him infallible. The limitations are fully recognised, and moral as well as constitutional restrictions are imposed upon him as upon other men. The Theory of the Divine Right of Monarchs has therefore to be understood with great modifications and the Western notions of about the infallibility and divinity of Kings and Popes must not be transplanted into the study of Indian Socio-political institutions. (Sukraniti, p.54). The theory that a man may be omniscient is rejected altogether in the Dharmasastra for the very nature of the case goes against the idea. To the argument of physical magnitude, extensity and vastness of political interests is added that of intellectual limitations and incapability of man. Man cannot be omnipresent, he cannot also be omniscient, and therefore he must never be made omnipotent. (Sukraniti, p.56). The true character of Indian jurisprudence is therefore different from that of the Anglo-American system. The obedience to the Shruti and Smriti etc., was not due to any political authority of their authors, but the veneration in which they were held by those for whom these writings were intended. These lawgivers showed admirable practical good sense in prescribing rules. While apparently professing to follow the Divine Laws and Commands as found in the Vedas and claiming simply to interpret and explain them to the general public, in reality the dharmasastra so moulded these texts as to bring them in conformity with the general sense of their followers—a fact which secured them a following and obedience which was as universal and strong- as that secured by a political authority. It has also to be understood well that the area of the jurisdiction of central power in ancient India was limited by the wide autonomy of the local bodies, of village and town governments, and of autonomous, economic, religious and military organizations. Their consent in the rules of dharma, which touched them also, had to be taken into account by any ruler. The idea that the central power was the monistic sovereign did not reflect the reality of social life in India. In the life of the common man, the direct impact of the central power in the country or region was not significant. Society was constituted of many social groups which were voluntary, hereditary, functional and provisional with several groups performing multiple functions. The legitimacy and authority of all these social groups was derived from the same source of dharma. The economic and social support of the central power came from the allegiance and cooperation of these diverse social groups which were fairly autonomous in their day to day functioning. They followed their own dharma which was usually in consonance with the dharmic law of the land. Thus the central political organisation was not not omnipotent or omnipresent like the fictional sovereign of the legal positivism. It was only one of the many governing social and religious organizations, often the primary, but not one that touched the lives of people deeper than the others. Dharmic law was essentially a pluralist law which included and transcended the formal command of the political sovereign. (Aiyangar, 2018, p.179) [14] As a holistic legal system Indian jurisprudence emphasized and intrumentalised the intricate connection between different interlinking elements of the whole experience of human life. Indian law principles were in opposition to the classical positivist theories of law. Indian law concepts thus fall firmly within the theoretical parameters of the sociological school of jurisprudence, which treats legal rules as organically grown and socially tested normative orders and therefore does not accept the domination of legal absolutism or positivist. A deeper analysis of ancient Indian law yields a systemic, multifaceted truth inherent in dharmic law, which never developed the aspiration to rule from above in absolutist legal fashion but sought to rule from within the society and individuals. Legal regulation from above, in the absolutist sense, may be apparently prominent, but there are deeper levels of legal regulation which can be ignored only at great cost. Dharmic law and its underlying philosophy does not simply accept the simplistic impression that legal rules can solve all problems. In Indian cultural conceptualization, law is eternally and intrinsically connected with other spheres and levels of life. (Menski, p.42). It was the influence of the Hindu view of life, as given in the dharmasastra, that influenced the ruler and the ruled, and promoted their harmonious relations, and facilitated for both the moderation of their actions in accordance with the common ideals of coexistence. The best of all guarantees of good government in the dharmasastra was in bringing up the king and his ministers in the same ideals as the common man, and make both realize the supremacy of dharma as the both the letter and the spirit of the human law. It is only when human life is seen in the perspective of cosmic coexistence, and how important the self is as part of the cosmic reality and how all existence is interconnected in the common process of creation and transformation, that a proper sense of rules and values can be gained. The function and value of dharmasastra is to show the path to this realisation. (Aiyangar, Aspects, p.180). Dharmic law is alive and well at several conceptual levels of law, and it enables modern India’s creative use of Indian concepts in seeking to construct a justicefocused legal system that does not need the crutches of a foreign legal order, but remains open to modification and reform as and when circumstances suggest it. Thus, to argue that the ancient Indians did not have ‘law’ would be plain nonsense. If indeed all human societies have law, why should ancient Indian societies be any different? The simple answer is that the ancient Indians conceived of law differently from Western cultures. Dharmic law, as is widely acknowledged, represents a culturespecific form of natural law. Both at the conceptual level and within processes of official law-making and policy formulation, concepts and rules of dharmic law retain a powerful voice in how India, in the 21st century, is seeking to achieve social and economic justice for over a billion people. It holds its position as a major legal system of the world, often despised and largely unrecognised, but massively present in the world of the twenty first century. At least a billion people, roughly a seventh of the world citizenry, remain governed by [15] dharmic law in one form or another. Numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts and subordinate judiciary bear witness to this social reality. State law and dharmic law are not incompatible, both interact with each other in many ways that we cannot even begin to analyse. Indian traditions are manifestly much more than folkloristic decorations, and dharmic law is a demanding multi-disciplinary arena which seems to put researchers off. Dharmic law has always been much more than a fossilised book law that could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. It could not simply be reduced to redundancy in the Austinian fashion, that taught Indian leadership to embrace legal positivism as a philosophy and top-down law-making as a magic tool of development. Justice Katju has observed that in ancient and medieval India there was tremendous development not only in the fields of science and philosophy, but also in the field of law. However, he lamented that the advent of British rule denied us the benefits of these developments as the alien rulers made it a policy to demoralise and denigrate us by propagating the idea that Indians were a race with no worthwhile achievement to their credit. (Katju, p. 7). Force of Dharma The foregoing brief discussion will make it clear that the rules contained in the dharmasutras and other works on dharmasastra relating to danda as the force of law had their roots deep down in the most ancient Vedic tradition and that the authors of the dharmasutras were quite justified in looking up to the Vedas as a source of dharma. But the Vedas do not profess to be formal treatises on dharma; they contain only disconnected statements on the various aspects of dharma; we have to turn to the smritis for a formal and practical treatment of the topics of the dharmasastra. Indian classical texts like the Manusmriti, and Sukraniti, which are in the category of Nitisastra, Arthasastra, Dharmasastra, Tirukkural, or Dharmasutra deal mainly with the specific topics implied by such Hindu categories as Dharma (morals), Artha (interests) and Kama (desires and passions) as opposed to Moksa (salvation). Dharmasastra texts like Manusmriti, Yagyavalkayasmriti and Sukraniti reveal keen insight into the principles of strong and good government and political wisdom that find place in Indian texts of the time. These works are based on the principle that the security of the state depends not on the passive virtue of obedience to the laws promulgated by it but on the social cohesion and active cooperation of the people with it in carrying these laws into effect. The structure and functioning of the Indian political system of these times has many points which have anticipated the latest principles of good governance administration and which have yet to be realised by modern States. (Sukraniti, p. 39-40). In these texts the existence of conflicts, disunions, rivalry and factional spirit is considered to be the greatest of all dangers to social cohesion and political security. The bond of civil society is torn asunder when the moral system is disrupted. Hence the greatest political offender and the most criminal sinner is he who by his conduct promotes the breach between those who should normally live in amity and peace. The [16] general violence of criminal activity is seen in hindu jurisprudence as the most insidious threat to the order of law. The main problem with unlawful violence is less the injury it causes to some person or group than the threat it poses to the state or other legal authority. Sukraniti provides against such offences by the socio-political decree issued by the king. (Sukraniti, p. 40). “According to the dictates of Sukraniti the execution of bad men is real ahimsa i.e., mercy. One is deserted by good people and acquires sins by always not punishing those ought to be punished, and punishing those who ought not to be, and by being a severe punisher”. (ibid. p. 131). A state is a state because it can coerce, restrain, compel. Eliminate control or the coercive element from social life, and the state as an entity vanishes. Danda is the very essence of statal relations. No danda, no state. A sanctionless state is a contradiction in terms. The absence of danda is tanta-mount to matsya-nyaya or the state of nature. It is clear also that property and dharma do not exist in that non-state. These entities can have their roots only in the state. The whole theory thus consists of three fundamental rules : no danda or sengol, no state; no state, no dharma; and no dharma, no individuality and property. (Sarkar, Political Institutions, p. 197). Manusmriti considers danda to be a tremendous force for discipline, hard to be controlled by persons with undisciplined minds, it destroys the King who has swerved from duty, along with his relatives. Then it will afflict his fortress and kingdom, the world along with movable and immovable things, as also the sages and the gods inhabiting the heavenly regions. Therefore punishment shall be given appropriately to men who act unlawfully, after having carefully considered the time and place, as also the strength and learning of the accused. When meted out properly after due investigation, punishment makes all people disciplined and happy; but when meted out without due investigation, it destroys all things. (Manusmriti, Vol.5, p.289-90) Discipline cannot be justly administered by one whose mind is not disciplined, or who is addicted to sensual objects, or who is demented, or who is avaricious, or whose mind is not disciplined, or who is addicted to sensual objects. Discipline can be administered by one who is pure, who is true to his word, who acts according to the Law, who has good assistants and is wise. The King who metes out punishment in the proper manner prospers in respect of his three aims of virtue, wealth, and pleasure; he who is blinded by affection, unfair, or mean is destroyed by that same punishment. (ibid. p. 292-93). In the same spirit, Tirukkular says that if the sengol of the king does not rest on justice, and if he acts without wisdom, he will see his wealth and prestige fade away. (Tirukullar, 57). Having duly ascertained the motive and the time and place, and having taken into consideration the condition of the accused and the nature of the offence, punishment should be given to those deserving punishment. Unjust punishment is destructive of reputation among men and subversive of fame; in the other world also it leads to loss of heaven; he shall therefore avoid it. The king, punishing those who do not deserve to be punished, and not punishing those who deserve to be punished, attains great illfame and goes to hell. The message is very clear, virtue lies in action. Mere words and [17] principles, without insightful action are sure to lead to individual and social degeneration (Manusmriti, p. 282). In Sukraniti, punishment emphasizes rectitude and deterrence over retribution. In fact, danda in this view is what makes law practical at all as it contains a recognition of human imperfection and fallibility. Law in its fullest sense can only exist in the world if danda is there to correct the inevitable failings of human beings. Without danda, law remains an elusive ideal to which no one can aspire. With danda law becomes satya, the truth that upholds social and individual righteousness. Danda simultaneously guarantees the overall stability of the social system and development of the individual. In Tirukkural, the value of the word of the priest, and the value of the honour for men, is considered to rest on the value of the sengol held by the king. (Tirukkural, 55). Sukraniti sees danda as a two edged sword that cuts both ways. On the one hand it is a corrective of social abuses, a moralizer purifier and civilizing agent. As the Sukraniti says it is by the administration of danda that the State can be saved from a reversion to matsyanyaya and utter annihilation and it is by danda the people are set on the right path and they become virtuous and refrain from committing aggression or indulging in untruths. Danda is efficacious moreover in causing the cruel to become mild and the wicked to give up wickedness. It is good also for preceptors and can bring them to their senses should they happen to be addicted to an extra dose of vanity or unmindful of their own vocations. Finally it is the foundation of civic life, being the ‘great stay of all virtues’ and all the ‘methods and means of statecraft’ would be fruitless without a judicious exercise of danda. Its use as a beneficent agency in social life is therefore unequivocally recommended by Sukra. (Sarkar, Basic Ideas, p. 513-14). But on the other hand danda is also a most potent instrument of restrain the ruler himself, to the powers that be. The maladmmistration of danda says Kamandaka leads to the fall of the ruler. Manu ls does not hesitate to declare that danda would smite the king who deviates from his duty from his ‘station in life’. It would smite his relatives too together with his castles territories and possessions. The common weal depends therefore on the proper exercise of the danda. Manu would not allow any ill disciplined man to be the administrator of danda. The greatest amount of wisdom accruing from the help of councillors and others is held to be the essential precondition for the handling of this instrument. And here is available the logical check on the eventual absolutism of the danda dhara in the Indian tradition. (ibid.). In the two edged sword of the danda then we encounter on the one side interests of the State and on the other individual morality, virtue, dharma, etc. In fact, it is to ‘educate’ man out of the primitive licence and beastly freedom that government has been instituted. The State is designed to correct human vices or restrain them and open out the avenues to a fuller and higher life. And all this is possible only because of danda. The conception of this eternal co-relation in societal existence is one of the profoundest contributions of the political philosophy of the Hindus to human thought. This concept changes the emphasis from what law restrains to what law enables. It [18] suggests that every legal system must contain morals and ethical elements which can be understood in religious terms. (ibid.). “In accordance with the doctrine of danda, the state is conceived as a pedagogic institution or moral laboratory, so to speak. It is an organization in and through which men's natural vices are purged, and it thereby becomes an effective means to the general uplifting of mankind. The Hindu theorists therefore consider the state to be an institution " necessary " to the human race if man is not to grovel in the condition of matsya-nyaya under the law of beasts. Man, if he is to be man, cannot do without political organization. He must have a state and must submit to sanction, coercion and punishment — in a word, to danda”. (Sarkar, Political Institutions, p.203). In recent years social scientists have proposed a link between social cohesion, religion, and punishment. Even in the smallest-scale societies, social scientists have argued, participation in religious and cultural activities strengthens group solidarity and improves social harmony. Recently, researchers have begun to put these cultural insights to the test through both systematic field studies and laboratory experiments. Laboratory studies, for example, have shown that synchronous movements, like dancing or marching, foster greater solidarity and more cooperation. Consistent with the multilevel account above, both cultural and historical studies reveal how social cohesion has driven the diffusion of effective practices and faiths. This suggests that deep in our evolutionary history, social cohesion was favoring social norms and practices that increased solidarity. (Henrich, p.230). While group-bonding practices initially evolved to make face-to-face communities cooperative and cohesive, gradually these practices transformed for the scaling up of cooperation to larger imagined communities in which thousands of individuals interact, exchange, and cooperate. To facilitate this degree of scaling up, researchers have argued, cultural evolution, by anchoring on human species’ innate capacities to entertain the existence of supernatural agents, led to the emergence of increasingly powerful and morally concerned deities (or supernatural forces) who monitor and punish non-cohesive or antisocial activities, such as murder, theft, or adultery (Norenzayan et al. p.2). Over time, faith and beliefs about these supernatural forces evolved further to increase their effectiveness: Gods expanded their range of moral concerns (e.g., openness toward strangers), ability to monitor norm violators (e.g., mind-reading abilities, omniscience), and power to punish (e.g., controlling the afterlife). Here, consistent with models of social norms based on punishment, gods were turned into super punishers who could impose penalties in this life and the next. (Purzycki, p.1) A key psychological test of this hypothesis is whether people who believe in more powerful, moralizing gods are indeed more inclined to cooperate with others. Researchers have shown that individuals from diverse cultures and traditions who report stronger beliefs in more powerful moralizing gods are more fair-minded in experiments with anonymous persons and more supportive of public goods. To examine whether supernatural agents can indeed cause people to behave more [19] cooperatively, many studies have shown that when imbued with thoughts of god and specifically thoughts of supernatural punishment, believers become more fair-minded, cooperative, and honest with strangers. Together with historical and cross-cultural data supporting the claim that gods became increasingly morally concerned, powerful, and punishing over historical time, the psychological evidence suggests that certain religions may have evolved culturally in ways that have altered people’s psychology and thereby permitted the cohesiveness of societies. (Henrich, ibid.). Conclusion India’ Vedic tradition reveals two fundamental principles of connection between Absolute Reality, knowledge and action. First, the Absolute Reality as pure existence or being, which is beyond space and time, is eternally emergent and integrated. Second, the connection of individual existence, which can be located in space and time, with the Absolute Reality is dynamic and creative. Vedic quest for Rta or Dharma is aimed at correspondence with the Absolute Reality. It cannot go beyond, nor can it stop short. The ideal for knowledge and action can neither be differentiation nor relativity, where bounded human capacity prevails in some form or another. The goal is to reach consciousness of oneness beyond all differences including the duality of the particular and the universal, the finite and the infinite. This is what is indicated by the Vedic mahavakya “Aham Brahmasmi” or “I am Brahma”. The realization of Dharma, the connection of the individual with the Absolute Reality, is highest and the most fulfilling of all knowledge and action. It means the culmination of all that human beings can strive for and achieve. It removes forever all the delusions, doubts, fears, tensions, and sufferings. It is the more or less imperfect consciousness of the connection of the particular with the universal that is the reason for the evolution of the concepts of Rta and Dharma in Indian knowledge tradition. While Rta serves to make possible the conceptual comprehension of the absolute, Dharma points out the way to realization of the connection between the part and the whole in practice. The vision of the Vedic sages needs to be communicated and implemented by reasoning on the texts and not by arguments against them. The Vedas do not contradict rational knowledge, and can not be contradicted by them. The function of Dharma is not to judge the validity of the Vedic statements, but to determine their true relevance, free from inconsistencies and in conformity with the established facts. The Vedic statements are the source of Dharma but it is not to be applied dogmatically in all times and places. Dharma applies Vedic wisdom through intelligent interpretation compatible with perceptual and inferential knowledge. In the Vedas there are primary and secondary statements and principles with literal and implied meanings. Dharma provides the key to unlock and instantiate the fundamental principles of the Vedas. While the connection of immanence and transcendence is a characteristic of all existence, human or divine; and it is at the same time a natural, empirical fact of common human experience. Basically, Dharma is the synchronization of the individual to the Absolute Reality. [20] Bibliography 1. Aiyangar, Rangaswami, Some Aspects of The Hindu View of Life, New Delhi: Lifespan, 2018. 2. ---, Rangaswami, Rajadharma, Adyar: Adyar Library, 1941. 3. Altekar, A S, Sources of Hindu Dharma in its Socio religious Aspects, Sholapur: Institute of Public Administration, 1952. 4. Apte V M, Social and Religious Life in the Grhya Sutras, Bombay : Popular Book Depot, 1954. 5. Arthasastra, Tr. R P Kangle, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas, 2021. 6. Arthasastra, Tr. R Shamasastry, Bangalore: Government Press, 1915. 7. Agarwal, V.S., The Thousand Syllabled Speech, Varanasi.:, Prithvi Prakashan, 1963. 8. ---, V.S., Bharatiya Dharma Mimamsa, Varanasi: Prithvi Prakashan, 1979. 9. ---, V.S., Rachna Sanchayan, New Delhi: Sahitya Academi, 2012. 10. Arya, Pratibha, Smritiyon Mein Rajniti aur Arthasastra, Gyanpur, Vishwabharati, 2007. 11. Banerjee, Nikunja Vihari, Studies in the Dharmasastra of Manu, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1980. 12. Banerjee, Suresh Chandra, A Companion to the Dharmasastra, New Delhi: D K Printworl, 1998. 13. Baxi, Upendra, Towards a sociology of Indian law. New Delhi: Satvahan, 1986. 14. Bhagvadgita, Tr. S. Radhakrishnan, New Delhi: Harper, 2010. 15. Bhattacharjee, A.M., Indian law and the Constitution. 2nd ed. Calcutta: Eastern Law House, 1994. 16. Bhattacharya K K, (Trans), Institutes of Parasara, Asiatic Society Calcutta, 1887. 17. Bhattacharyya, Parnasabari, Conceptualizations in the Manusmrti, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1996. 18. Buhler George, (Trans), The Law of Manu with Extracts from Seven Commentaries, The Sacred Books of the East Series, No XXV, Delhi: Motilal Banrasi Dass, 2018. 19. ---, George, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas as Taught in the Schools of Apastamba Gautama Vasistha and Baudhayana (2 Vols). Delhi: Motilal Banrasi Dass, 2008. 20. Capra, Frirzof, and Ugo Mattei, The Ecology of Law: Towards a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community, New Delhi: Harper Collins, 2015. 21. Cardozo, Benjamin, The Growth of the Law, New Delhi: Law and Justice, 1924/2020. 22. ---, Benjamin, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Satyam Law, 1921/2021. 23. Carrel, Alexis, Man the Unknown, New Delhi: R Sons, 1935/2019. 24. Chiba, Masaji, ed. Asian Indigenous Law. London: Routledge, 2009. 25. Coomarswamy, Ananda K. Spiritual and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government, New Delhi: DK Publishers, 2013. 26. Davis, Jr., Donald R. The Spirit of Indian Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. [21] 27. ---, Donald R., Jr. 2004. Dharma in Practice: Acara and Authority in Medieval Dharmasastra. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32.5:813–830. 28. ---, Donald R., Jr. “Intermediate Realms of Law: Corporate Groups and Rulers in Medieval India”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 48.1: 92–11,2005. 29. Day, Terence P. The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1982. 30. Derrett, J. Duncan M. Religion, Law, and the State in India. London: Faber, 1968. 31. ---, J.D.M. Hindu Law Past and Present. Calcutta: A. Mukherjee & Co, 1957. 32. ---, J.D.M., An Introduction to Modern Hindu Law. London and Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1963. 33. ---, J.D.M. Essays in classical and Modern Hindu law. Vol.3. Leiden:Brill, 1977. 34. Dhavan, Rajeev, ‘Dharmasastra and Modern Indian Society: A preliminary exploration’. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp.515-540, Vol.34, No.4 1992. 35. Dutt, Manmath Nath, The Dharmasastra, Hindu Religious Codes, Vol. I-V, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1979. 36. Dwivedi, Kapildev, Vedon Mein Rajnitisastra, Gyanpur: Vishwabharati, 2009. 37. ---, Kapildev, Vedik Darshan, Gyanpur: Vishwabharati, 2006. 38. ---, Kapildev, Vedik Sahitya aur Sanskriti, Gyanpur: Vishwabharati, 2021. 39. Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Three Rivers, 1982. 40. Gajendragadkar, P.B. ‘The historical background and theoretical basis of Indian law’. In: AIR 1963, Journal section, pp.18-26. 41. Glen, H. Patrick, Legal Traditions of the World, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010. 42. Govt. of India, Courts of India: Past to Present, New Delhi: Publications Division, 2016. 43. Hardas, Balshastri, Glimpses of Vedic Nation, Madras: Kamakoti, 1967. 44. Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and philosophy, New Delhi: Penguin, 1989. 45. Henrich, Joseph, et al. The Origin and Psychology of Cooperation, Annual Review of Psychology, 2021. 72:207-40. 46. Jagannathan, R. Dharmic Nation, New Delhi: Rupa, 2023. 47. Jayaswal, K. P., Manu and Yagyavalkya. New Delhi: Cosmo, 2004. 48. ---, K. P., Hindu Polity; Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times. New Delhi: Chaukhamba Publications, 2006. 49. Jha, Ganganath, Studies in Hindu Law, Varanasi: Sampurnananda, 1992. 50. Jois, Rama, Legal and Constitutional History of India: Ancient Legal, Judicial and Constitutional System. Gurugram: Universal Lexis Nexis, 2022. 51. ---, Rama, Seeds of Modern Public Law in Ancient Indian Jurisprudence. 2nd ed. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2000. 52. ---, Rama, Dharma : The Global Ethic, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay, 1996. 53. Jolly, Julius, Indian Law and Custom. Varanasi and Delhi: Bhartiya Publishing House, 1975. 54. Joshi, Lakshmanshastri, Vaidik Sanskriti ka Vikas, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2017. [22] 55. Kane, P. V. History of Dharmaśāstra. 5 vols. Poona: Bori, 1962–75. 56. Katju, Markandey, Ancient Indian Jurisprudence, Speech delivered on 27th November, 2010 at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. 57. Khanna, Madhu, ed., Rta: The Cosmic Order, New Delhi: D K Printworld, 2004. 58. Larivière, Richard W. ‘Dharmaśāstra, custom, ‘real law’ and ‘apocryphal’ Smrtis’. In: Kőlver, Larivière, Richard W. (ed.) Studies in Dharmaśāstra. Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1984. 59. Lingat, Robert. The Classical Law of India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. 60. Lombard, Jay, The Mind of God, New York, Harmony, 2022. 61. Mahabharata, Tr. R.N. Pandeya, Gorakhpur: Gita Press, 2015. 62. Manusmṛti: with ‘Manubhāṣya’ of Medhātithi, Jha, Ganganath. 10 vols., 2nd edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2016. 63. Markandeya Purana, Gorakhpur: Gita Press, 2021. 64. Matsya Purana, Gorakhpur: Gita press, 2020. 65. Menski, Werner. Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity. Delhi: oxford University Press, 2003. 66. ---, Werner. Comparative Law in a Global Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 67. Moghe, S G, Some Aspects of Studies in Dharmasastra, Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, 2003. 68. Motwani Kewal, Manu Dharmasastra: A Sociological and Historical Study, Madras Ganesh & Co. 1958. 69. Mukerjee, Radhakamal, The Philosophy of Social Science, New Delhi: Radha publications, 2005. 70. Narang, Sudesh (ed.) Dharmasastra in contemporary times. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1988. 71. Nath, Kamleshwar, Glimpses of Ancient Indian Law, Bharatiya Manyaprad, Vol.4, No.1, 2016, pp. 37-50. 72. Nazeer, Justice Abdul, Decolonisation of the Indian Legal System, Speech delivered in Hyderabad, 26 December 2021. 73. Nivedita, Sister, Religion and Dharma, Kolkata: Advaita Ashram, 2012. 74. Norenzayan, Ara, et al. Supernatural norm enforcement, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , March 2019. 75. Olivelle, Patrick, Dharmasutras: The Law codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha. Delhi et al.: Oxford University Press, 2000. 76. Pal, Radha Gobind, The History of Hindu Law, Calcutta, Calcutta University Press, 1958. 77. Purohit, S.K. Ancient Indian legal philosophy. Its relevance to contemporary jurisprudential thought. New Delhi: Deep & Deep, 1994. 78. Purzycki, Benjamin, et al. Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality, Nature, March 2019. 79. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1. Delhi: Oxford, 2019. 80.---. The Spirit of Religion, New Delhi, Hind Pocket Books, 2009. 81. ---, The Principal Upanisads, New Delhi: Oxford, 2017. 82. Rg Veda, Tr. Dayananda Saraswati, New Delhi: Hasananda, 2007. [23] 83. Rocher, Ludo. “Hindu Law and Religion: Where to Draw the Line?” in Malik Ram Felicitation Volume, 1972. 84. Rovelli, Carlo, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, New Delhi: Penguin, 2016. 85. Sarat A. and T. Kearns, eds. Law in Everyday Life, eds. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 1993. 86. Sarkar, Benoy Kumar, The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi. 1985. 87. ---, Benoy Kumar, The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus, , Verlag, Leipzig. 1922. 88. ---, Benoy Kumar. “Some Basic Ideas of Political thinking in Ancient India”, in The Cultural History of India, Vol. 2, 509-529. 2016. 89. ---, Benoy Kumar. “The Indian Theory of the State,” Political Science Quarterly 36(1) (1921): 79–90. 90. Sastry, V. Kutumba, “Semantics Of Dharma”, in Dharma the Categorial Imperative, ed. Ashok Vohra, New Delhi: DK Printworld, 2005. 91. Satyaprakashananda, Swami, Methods of Knowledge, Kolkata: Advaita, 2022. 92. Schauer, Frederick, The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else, Cambridge, Harvard University press, 2022. 93. Sen, Prosonto Kumar, Penology Old and New, Tagore Law Lectures, Calcutta: Longman Green’s, 1943. 94. Singh, Chhatrapati ,‘Dharmasastras and contemporary jurisprudence’. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp.179-188, Vol.32 No.2, 1990. 95. Sivaramayya, B. ‘Dharmaśāstra and Contemporary Indian Law’. In Narang, Sudesh (ed.): Dharmasastra in Contemporary Times. Delhi: Nag Publishers, pp.67-76. 1988. 96. Spellman, John, Political Theory of Ancient India, Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. 97. Sukraniti , Tr. Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi. 1975. 98. Swain, Brij Kishore, Dharmasastra: A Link Between Tradition and Modernity, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Publications, 2003. 99. ---, Brij Kishore, Dharmasastra: An Introductory Analysis, Delhi: Akshay Prakashan, 2004. 100. Tirukkural, Tr. Gopal Krishna Gandhi, New Delhi: Aleph Book, 2015. 101.Tripathi, Upendra Kumar, Anoop Kumar, eds., Vedic Traditions of Law and Legal System, Varanasi: Center for Vedic Sciences, 2022. 102. Vayu Purana, Tr. T.V. Tagare, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1997. 103.Vishwabandhu, Ved Shastra Samgraha, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2017. [24]