Scope Of Smṛti And Nature Of A Dhārmic State – Part 3 by Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli

 Envisaging a Native Constitution

A constitution based on dharma and meant for a dhārmic society, would ideally base itself on the scheme of dharma. It understands how morality builds bottom up and takes cognizance of institutions of society that help maintain such a moral order. The reconciliation between individual and collective reflects in the way constitution enshrines ideals. Besides, a native constitution takes cognizance of dhārmic view of man instead of an occidental view. This has several implications on how a constitution designed for a Hindu society looks like.

Layering

First is that constitution would base itself on Indian moral scheme, which is subtle and evolved: It has several layers, deeper ones are based on permanent human nature (Sanātana) and upper/outer layers are based on stages of social cycle (yuga dharma), changing times (deśa, kāla). Basic structure and deeper layers of constitution must be based on the unchanging laws, and temporal layers should be based on the changing times. This stratification is absent in Indian constitution because it does not base itself on an evolved scheme of morality such as Dharma.

The basic structure of constitution as we currently know, a notion introduced to prevent distorting the document out of shape by legislators, as happened during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, is not based on such scheme of what is permanent and what is temporary, but on some ideals that were falsely deemed to be permanent features of this nation, all of which were introduced after independence.

The permanent features of the nation depend not on the physical boundaries of nation but on permanent principles of nature and human nature. The primal consciousness qualities (guṇa), principle of action and righteousness (karma and dharma), human craving for fulfillment (puruṣārtha) are the permanent principles that form the “basic structure”. This layer does not strictly become a basic structure of a constitution, but becomes a meta text that a constitution derives from. This portion of smṛti continues from older ones and its principles derived from axiomatic texts.

A nation’s defining identity comes next to this, and derives from how a “law of the land” is defined based on the above principles. The nation will be seen as an aggregate of all those geo-cultural units and their distinct cultural identities will be taken cognizance of. This is in stark contrast to the way post-independence nation was seen as an aggregate of geo-political units, first seen as princely states then dissolved into 20+ states, again geo-political units. A dhārmic constitution sees the union of states with respect to their alignment with geo-cultural units, and takes cognizance of the geo-cultural units as more permanent defining identities of peoples. Geo-political units will be constituted in a way they represent these geo-cultural units.

The institutions of a self-governing nation have far greater autonomy from the institutions of state when compared to a nation-state. State would make an explicit policy of its responsibility to align with nation instead of force-fitting the nation under a nation-state. The way the state sees itself and the nation would derive from the above. Some of the aspects that can be highlighted –

Human liberties are not bound by fundamental rights but become enablement for fulfillment of the highest order, the puruṣārtha-s. State does not provide these rights or liberties but they are “naisargika” or birth rights that nature endows on humans. State on the other hand, has the accountability to ensure against violation of natural liberties of humans. The fourth puruṣārtha-s of infinite happiness and freedom, is the ultimate human craving and the freedom of individuals, perceived and possessed are proportionate to the extent of manifestation of intrinsic nature (explained in Dharma section above). The fact of an ultimate human craving of boundless freedom is reconciled by limited outward binding of liberties on the basis of violations of collective spaces and the restrictions state ever imposes on individuals are limited to those violations.

State legislates its own responsibilities rather than interfere with social life to enforce morality, taking cognizance of the fact that in a dhārmic society ideals do not flow top-down but built bottom-up. This also means that there is no uniform standard of “morality” but implies stratification and diversity based on the way individuals and groups organize themselves. State largely enters as a mediator during violation or conflict rather than as a defining authority for morality. State understands that establishing a moral order is largely a result of a strong self-regulating society, and that promotion of high values of life and civilization is something the knowledge and traditions alone are capable of doing.

Nature of Individuals and Society

There needs to be an epistemic basis for understanding what the nature of the society is, before defining the nature of a state that aligns with such a society and enables/protects it best. To lay down this basis the smṛti devotes, ahead of sections on state, to sections on explaining the nature of individual and collective life. These sections are not to be construed as a rule book. The spirit of smṛti itself is to explain the nature of things that form basis for formulating policy rather than a list of do-s and don’t-s.

The elaborate descriptions of individual and collective life, including varṇa and āśrama dharma, are otherwise out of place because state is not the one that decides how individuals should live, what their lifestyle should be and what is the expiation. These are rather descriptions of how individuals in society, belonging to the three primal consciousness qualities and at different stages of their life, live their life, without knowing which violations to their liberties cannot be understood by the state, and without formalizing those the state cannot create appropriate policies or impose just penalties.

Unlike constitution that does not have an ontological basis but has only a moving reference driven by ideals and rights determined by an evolving phenomenal social convention, smṛti lays down these bases very clearly, to enable the state formulate policies that optimally deal with situations by making necessary trade-offs and prioritization whenever there is a conflict between temporal and permanent principles.

Constitution holds “caste” discrimination to be a social evil and creates a linear OC/BC/SC/ST ladder in enlisting different caste groups to selectively privilege some underprivileged groups to achieve parity in empowerment. As post-independence polity witnessed, caste identities only solidified with more political alignment and the collective craving became identification with backwardness instead of abhyudaya. One cannot deduce this to be a social problem independent of state, it is rather a problem created by state in the society.

In contrast, in Hindu states run by the vision of smṛti-s, as history witnessed, Hindus of all groups stood shoulder by shoulder both in contributing to the prosperity of nation and in fighting external enemies such as Moslem invaders and Christian colonizers. The problem of disproportionate privilege, primarily a result of two phases of colonial rule (slavery and feudalism), needs to be undone with an organic view of what the nature of society is and how it responds to various challenges.

Hindu view is about understanding how things work than force-fitting data into a narrative. We need to therefore consider what is natural:

1. When a society is subjugated, all sections suffer, each in a different way to a different extent.
2. When an external trauma is caused, body does develop internal disease too.
3. A prospering society sees harmony if laid on just principles, and a diverse society when constrained and subjugated sees greater internal trauma.
4. While at an individual level empathy is helpful, a solution at macro level involves deeper and dispassionate understanding of the workings of society. Policies made out of former are good for emotional appeals to society and vote bank politics, but not in alleviation of problems.

These premises, as one can factually validate with centuries of data of what happened and is happening to Hindu society, leave no credibility with the outside-in prism that the state currently adopts. A dhārmic rājya does not legislate discrimination or against it, for solutions to social problems need to be organic and coming from the seers that understand their nature and can envision institutions that not only solve the effects of past but form the basis for abhyudaya of the entire society.

For a solution to an internal problem created by an external factor (the non-aligned state), we will need to undo the principles that underlie the creation of such problem in the post-colonial rule. The assumption of a linear money-power ladder should be removed and state should adopt an insider prism towards the society instead of an outsider prism.

Groups would be allowed to thrive on their strengths, rather than made to compete in a linear ladder and a constrained space. One of the primary causes of Hindu success over millennia is the expanding space various groups had in economic, political and knowledge spheres. Enablement of individual and collective fulfillment is largely a function of institutions of society, and state’s responsibility is limited to remove institutions of oppression and ensure that state remains committed to principles of dharma in policy making.

Smṛti would not make policies based on specific kula-s, such as enablement or disablement of opportunities. These are left to the institutions of the society. This is why there are no enlistments of kula-s or jāti-s while explaining the nature of society, but only a varṇa-āśrama dharma without alignment with specific jāti/kula groups. These are mobile and ever changing, and policies of state are meant only to ensure fairness based on the nature, function, action and situation instead of group to which an individual belongs. State also would not make a decision of which group or individual is to be identified with which layer of hierarchy.

As could be empirically validated in the long history of Bhārata, no single group remained in power all through. No single tradition assumed monopoly of knowledge. No single group remained rich all through. No single group remained forever high or low in the ladder, and the mobility of individuals and groups in the long run remained the reason for the resilience of this nation and her culture. While a lot of data needs to be mined to validate this, a quick example would serve to demonstrate the point – one of the biggest empires for most part after Mahābhārata until foreign invasions, Magadha had seen several royal lineages (listed in many places including Sri Kota Venkatachalam’s Kaliśaka Vijnānam, while dates etc. are a different topic the list of lineages and their backgrounds holds good), a majority of which had risen from Śūdra groups. Individuals and groups had risen up and fallen off in the ladder, and the general principle is that more groups see upward mobility in a prospering phase and more groups see downward mobility during a subjugation/low phase of civilization, while other groups rise to the task to put up a struggle, fewer groups have the chance to come up and more groups are likely to suffer.

There would be temporal policies of upliftment from time to time, through enablement of individuals and empowerment of representatives. Hindu society is a meritocracy and mobility of individuals and groups is the vehicle for a dynamic equilibrium and balance of power. While state caters to the bottom rung or survival layer through explicit poverty alleviation programs, there is no interference in the policy of institutions to ensure the most qualified individuals come up and in turn allow the society to reap the benefits of the best abilities of individuals. The qualifications – technical or of character, are articulated by individual traditions and are not administered by state while their general nature is taken cognizance of, again not for policy making but to ascertain fairness in case of violations reported that explicitly seek state arbitration.

The collective abhyudaya of groups is achieved more through a passive enablement by state, since it is realized that it is the human puruṣārtha that causes abhyudaya. The empirical fact of movement of individuals and groups across different varṇa-s and āśrama-s, their evolving roles in society is not explicitly articulated in a smṛti for that becomes a sāmānya or a commonly known collective dynamic rather than as a formal state policy.

An engineered society’s liberties and fulfillment are scuttled, and smṛti takes cognizance of this fact to limit state policy to ensure protection of those permanent institutions that in the long run ensure the dynamic equilibrium through the puruṣārtha of individuals and groups. Here again the smṛti reposes trust in human nature, craving for fulfillment, individual and collective tendencies and the inherently evolving nature of society, as explained in the Morality section. In the long run, a healthy mobility and dynamic equilibrium as was possible in Hindu society will be possible through a highly autonomous society, while an engineered society becomes dependent on systemic power structures and loses sight of higher goals, liberties and abhyudaya. Besides, an organic mobility involves rise of groups that are best positioned to lead the society in the given circumstances, unlike in an engineered society in which the collective abilities are throttled by least common denominator.  This can be demonstrated by the simile of a vitalizing of body and immunity system to overcome disease versus an external medicine applied to the body which has side-effects as well as fails to develop the general health and strength of the body.

Rāja Dharma

The nature of state and its responsibilities are also defined, not just as duties of state, but as its intrinsic nature and cravings in a way that they align with the nation. This nature or order is called Rāja Dharma. We continue to use the word rāja, however this does not necessarily point to the monarch but head of state. These are exhaustively dealt in dharma Śāstra-s including Mahābhārata (Śānti & Anuśāsanika parva-s) and smṛti-s. Some aspects/principles of it highlighted below.

yathā rājā tathā prajā (as the ruler, so the people) is one of the foundational principles of a dhārmic state. There is a great onus placed on the state to ensure a right conduct of state machinery and individuals serving the state, since the people are supposed to emulate the ruler.  The people in a society ruled by a righteous ruler will be encouraged towards a righteous conduct, resulting in highest individual and collective fulfillment and abhyudaya. A society ruled by an unrighteous ruler (either by character or by dereliction of duty) will decline into a chaotic order. Corruption, be it fiscal or moral flows from the top and the most righteous conduct at the top ensures an overall righteous order and a peaceful, prospering nation. Thus, while ideals are not defined by state for individuals, they are defined for the state in a way that the state leads by example in sustaining an overall righteous order.

rāja is the pālaka or protector of people and their liberties and means of development/abhyudaya whose willpower actively aligns with dhārmic nation’s puruṣārtha. This is a principle that defines an active role of the state as the one that envisions and executes its own responsibilities towards the nation. To show the right direction to the society in times of dilemma, is the responsibility of state. To draw a parallel to present times, in the prevalent conflict between value systems of dharma and western morality, it becomes the responsibility of the state to resolve the conflict with the help of seers and scholars, and establish a non-chaotic system of rule that ensures liberties, enablement and abhyudaya as per the permanent principles of nature.

An associated principle of active nature of state is rājyasya mūlaM rāja (head of the state is also the root of the state) which indicates the importance of the willpower of ruler in the highest collective fulfillment/abhyudaya. This aspect becomes important, in ensuring positive growth of nation, its security, relations with external elements and other nations/states, in ensuring collective pride and identity, in steering state towards a secure and bright future.

prajā ranjakatva is the quality that Śāstra greatly emphasizes and we have most famous examples like rāma rājya. Governance should be pleasing for people and should endear the rulers to people through its policies, effectiveness, fairness and approachability, protection of liberties, security etc.

SikshA dakshata or the ability to just penalties that sufficiently discourage crime and removes fear from the minds of people with the right conduct. This will be discussed more in justice and penalty section.

Protection of soft elements of civilization is a primary responsibility of state and this is not seen by dharma merely as an activity of civilized to society to protect weak from strong. Protection of soft elements, including sense of beauty and growth functions, hold the possibilities of high civilization and are kept aloof from the lower functions of sustenance and protection. Thus protection of seers scholars and artists, women, children etc. is a responsibility that is greatly emphasized by dharma and is visible in the questions to rulers by rishis of all ages. Right from Nārada’s questions to Yudhiṣṭira to Marāṭhā affirmations of protecting these elements, this spirit is well understood all through the history.

Protection of weak from strong and powerful is the responsibility of rāja in the form of ensuring against violation of liberties of the weak (people not in positions of power or holding money or muscle power) and against exploitation. However, this does not ensure the enablement of weak in their own highest possible fulfillment and this is something the institutions of society ensure, in multiple meticulous ways. One is the collective capital and bargaining power of each group within the society that shields individual. Second is the avoidance of competition and confrontation between groups and individuals of parity through stratification and diversification of goals of individuals and groups based on inclination, potential and abilities. Third is the access to unique knowledge and life skill that is protected within groups that ensures their social relevance and respect. Fourth is the recognition of various kinds of power in society in play, such as knowledge, money & muscle power, demography/numbers, credibility, skill etc. and ensure that each of these is sufficiently accounted and honored as part of institutional design.

Very few of these principles are served by Indian state[1]. There is little prajā ranjakatva in the rule India saw after independence, and the elections have mostly been fought on the lowest denominator of expectations. We saw good and positive expectations being placed at a premium only as exception and leaders who do it are unlikely to succeed because only a small percentage of population responds to higher and positive expectations. The rhetoric of “people don’t have food, what will you do with super computer” worked for decades in spite of neither side of aspirations really getting addressed.

In contrast, a dhārmic rājya does not see society in “classes” that need to be appeased one at the expense of the other. The scheme of power distribution ensures complementarity and mutual dependency by separating knowledge, authority, wealth and skill. The bargaining power of these remains in an equilibrium, there is skewing that comes from time to time in one direction and gets automatically checked and balanced out with pulls from other directions.

Morality and Ideals

In a Hindu rāṣṭra, ideals do not flow top down but society has the liberty to build collective morality upwards. This goes against state spelling out ideals for the nation, which is the reason smṛti-s do not spell out ideals. The institutions that reconcile the micro and macro, the vyaṣṭi and samiṣṭi (explained in section “Bhārata the rāṣṭra” above) ensure balance of liberty and accountability, and build a collective order. The complex matrix of institutions (the culture unit, extended family, knowledge tradition, spiritual tradition etc) trade each other off in ensuring checks and balances and prevent skewing in one direction, be it of liberty or lack of it, ensure against exploitation while ensuring fulfillment and productivity.

Individuals fulfill dharma, in various capacities as individuals, groups, families, pursuers of vocations, citizens of different geo-cultural and geo-political entities. Collective order builds thus. The best example is set by rāja through his own fulfillment of rāja dharma (along with other natural ones such as vyakti) in motivating people towards their fulfillment and in ensuring collective abhyudaya.

While the west is comfortable with ideals, as they come to civilize them further from their previous conditions, experimenting with temporary ideals in a linear progressive manner is disastrous for Hindu society which is founded on a thorough understanding of changing and unchanging principles of nature and society.

Justice and Penalty

Enforcement of collective order is the responsibility of state. Intrinsic nature of beings becomes the basis for explaining human behavior and offense/violation of collective order is defined on the basis of assumption of a very wide civilizational spectrum and thus violations taken cognizance of are few. While state codifies several penalties, the general assumption is that the collective order is largely self-regulatory and state arbitration would become necessary in very few cases of serious violations of order.

The statement “law applies equally to all”, is often a statement of uniformity of law. However, it depends on the very nature of law, and if the law is a natural order, then its enforcement while fair and equal, cannot be uniform. The philosophy of penal system needs some explanation therefore, to put this in perspective.

There are multiple bases for determining the penalty imposed by state –

1. Make sure the individual suffers and pays back for the offense so that his parārtha does not suffer. This is the duty of rāja failing which rāja accrues the sin.
2. Deterrence of crime as a result of penalty, by making example of offenders and creating enough fear among offenders.
3. Realization/transformation in the individual (ideal)
4. Prevention of disproportionate penalty

A small folk story helps to put this in perspective. A king, ever concerned about the welfare of people and his ability to serve justice, once meets a saint. The saint, pleased with the king, decides to grant him a wish. The king requests that he needs a guide that tells him the correctness of judgments. The saint gives him a colorless stone, and tells that the stone changes colors based on the correctness of judgment and severity of penalty. For a just punishment it turns yellow, for a disproportionate punishment it turns red and for a mild punishment it turns blue. The king wishes to test the stone and while he roams in a village disguised as a civilian, he sees an incident. A group of boys assemble, one boy breaks the toy of another and they fight to resolve the matter. The king picks three boys assembled there and asks them to pass their judgments. The first boy says that a new toy must be given as substitute and the stone turns blue. Second boy pronounces punishment of 50 lashes and the stone turns red. Third boy says “what penalty could I impose to make the boy realize his mistake! If I had the power, I would do so” and suddenly the stone turns yellow. This explains the relative priorities of dhārmic justice system where positive transformation supersedes deterrence while high penalty has often been recommended for deterrence.

The algorithm for determining just penalty is fairly complex and involves several factors. The bases for determining penalty include guṇa and karma, and an evaluation of how much and the nature and severity of impact of penalty on the individual, rather than fixing penalty based on offense. These are the major factors involved –

1. Nature of the offender
2. Nature of offense
3. Motive of offense
4. Position of the individual and impact of penalty
5. Nature of individual
6. Nature of transformation expected

While a critique of present judicial system and penal code is too elaborate for the current scope, the philosophy of equal penalty suffers from unequal impact and hence fails at transformation and deterrence both. For instance a small government employee suffering 7 years of jail has his life destroyed while the same penalty for similar crime by a politician would mean that the latter may have much less actual imposition suffered, and has much less damage to his life, security, wealth after coming out. This will not only mean that laws trouble weak more than strong, but also that the deterrence for powerful people is minimal in the present system (apart from the fact that the possibility of actual conviction being low). This also defeats the other rāja dharma of ensuring the innocent and righteous should be fearless, since offenses by those within the system have less deterrence.

In contrast smṛti-s impose proportionate penalty, to the position and function/responsibility of the offender, along with his nature. Far higher penalty is imposed on cases where there is a smaller likelihood of conviction and higher impact of crime (such as people in high positions, rich people etc). There are also positive transformations through imposed roles than penalties in cases. Guṇa and karma form a complex algorithm, and it requires proper pedagogical training of dharma Śāstra to understand these. The dhārmic judicial experts have a rigorous training and several practical tests to clear before they enter the judicial system, at a regional or central level.

State machinery’s effectiveness in ensuring a crime-free society lies in,

1. Its fairness
2. How much it is feared by offenders and how much of fearlessness and assurance is given to the innocent
3. How transparent and corruption free the nexus of local social regulation is with state machinery
4. How much the need for arbitration is minimized by state and how much state consciously attempts to be non-coercive

Religious and Other Institutions

Knowledge traditions are the bedrock of Hindu civilization and their synthesis happens through the guru-śiṣya lineages. Temples and several other institutions, while at times have royal patronage, are usually run by dhārmik trusts that operate in collaboration with traditions. Temples are of several kinds, such as community, town, pilgrimage etc. Each kind has a different set of regulations to run and smṛti does not explicitly indicate any state interference in the running of these institutions. Temple remained a center of high culture and various activities right from learning, aesthetics, ritual, philanthropy, infrastructure, and so on. Given this background, state usually funded these as that directly results in an overall abhyudaya of society. While the post-colonial state took hold of several temples, there has been very little appreciable contribution from secular state. A dhārmic rājya invests positively, not just in protection of culture but in an active synthesis and development.

Marriage and several other institutions are largely social in nature and state enters only as an arbitrator rather than being a primary legal authority on these. The society exercises self-regulating mechanisms that encourage a positive fulfillment of individuals while having a wide and tolerable range of individual conduct which gets corrected within the ecosystem, through good examples, fear of stigma and so on. Religious freedom is just another natural liberty of individuals that state does not explicitly grant or revoke. Religious/spiritual practices of Bhārata have possibly the widest range that one could imagine, ranging from the aghoris to the jaina monks.

It can be said that Hindu society is a spiritual ecosystem that contains several religions (Hinduism is not but Hinduism has religious traditions), with the approximation of word “mata” (literally opinion/subscription/belief) for a religion. Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, Gāṇāpatya, Kaumāra, Saura are six such canonical “religions” or sects each of which has a separate theology, a supreme godhead. They multiplied by adoption of several spiritual philosophies such as sānkhya, dvaita & advaita. Thus it is more like a religious ecosystem than a religion where several religious lineages flourish, with a commonly understood set of norms for interaction. While there were brief violent conflicts outside the dialogue, the norms remain respected to this day – such as those of dialogue, norms for victory, qualification and freedom of propagation etc. Arguably Hinduism is the only such surviving ecosystem where religious traditions emerge and dissolve by the day from a fountainhead, and entire lifecycle of a religious tradition could be seen. Traditions emerge, get outdated and dissolve back into the stream giving rise to new ones. For instance several schools like Hari-Hara-Advaita (which is both theological and philosophical) were proposed, had their relevance in time, and dissolved back into the vedic fountainhead seamlessly. Similarly schools like Sānkhya (which is more philosophical) and Saura do not have living presence today as most of their fundamental tenets have been absorbed into more evolved later schools, ensuring that the knowledge and best practices survive regardless of the school’s popular practice. Nyāya schools had multiple cycles of emergence and dissolution with the establishment and refutation of their hypotheses. While this phenomenon in India began to freeze in the last two centuries and emergence and evolution of traditions has slowed down for various reasons, the culture of religious dialogue and enrichment of intra-Indic traditions continues. The assumption and understanding of an ecosystem of which each tradition is a co-existing subset, is pervasive in all the traditions. This is in contrast to the major religions like Christianity and Islam that rose more through exclusive preaching and less through dialogue/debate, and are standalone religions rather than members of a commonly built harmonious ecosystem.

Given this, the smṛti does not invoke state to grant or revoke any specific privilege to any tradition. The religious ecosystem largely takes care of itself, and any deviant conduct that amounts to criminal conduct is acted upon regardless of traditions. There are few cases where state explicitly interferes –

1. Cults or individuals that explicitly lose debates yet propagate through fraudulent means without accepting the general norms of ecosystem
2. Cults or individuals that attempt social discord, disruption of order and promote immoral conduct and that goes to the attention of state

Thus we see Bhojadeva acting on the nīlapaṭa cārvāka-s, Shivaji acting on the violent missionaries and so on while also protecting the non-mischievous groups like Parsis and non-violent Christian practitioners. This comes normally as part of rāja dharma, to ensure support to high civilization and in control of elements that disrupt order. This is achieved more through executive action and does not require explicit laws towards granting or revoking any rights or liberties.

Geo-polity

The basis for formation of state/geo-political unit is the geo-cultural unit. It is here that the real federal nature of the system becomes visible, while in other aspects only diversity becomes visible. The deśa-kāla layers of law vary from region to region and each geo-political unit (regional state in present parlance) codifies its own variations to this layer of constitution. This is not only a moving/temporal component but one that aligns with regional uniqueness. Different kinds and sizes of provinces, assume different kinds of laws and relation to the union, tradeoff of control and autonomy with the union. Regional states adhere fully to the permanent layer, negotiate the temporal layers and retain autonomy on the deśa-kāla layer.

Arbitration and administrative systems are federal and build bottom up, from grāma/nagara/mahānagara/paṭṭaṇa (village-town-city-port city) each having a system of arbitration (such as panchayat, gaṇa sabha, nyāya sabha etc). These are again organic and do not find explicit design in smṛti, since their arrangement is temporal and could evolve with time as civilization develops. Security system, administrative system etc. find place more in texts of statecraft than a smṛti and have explicit policies.

Conclusion

A smṛti for the age would require an understanding of traditional smṛtis, not as rule books but as guides to nature that form bases for creating constitutions. A smṛti would adopt majority elements of permanent nature from the older smṛti-s, incorporate suitable yuga dharma and deśa-kāla layers appropriately for the union and various regional states. The responsibilities of state, as prescribed by smṛti, would ensure that it aligns with the nature of the nation and plays an active role in facing external problems and a passive role in strengthening institutions of society (leaving active role to society’s self-regulating institutional structure) to solve internal problems and cause an overall abhyudaya. We believe that smṛti holds key for solving several fundamental problems of the nation in a much more organic and optimal way than the way the constitution and institutions of post-colonial Indian republic do.

[1] Democracy and Populism – https://arisebharat.com/2013/08/26/democracy-and-populism/

image credit: Picxy.com/prudhvichowdary

Courtesy: https://www.indica.today/research/raja-dharma-series-iv-c/

Scope Of Smṛti And Nature Of A Dhārmic State – Part 2 by Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli

 Nature as Teacher and the Trustee

One of the most important aspects of dhārmic thought is seeing Nature as the ultimate teacher. It is not just about understanding Nature and Her workings, but about basing the design of the most evolved human institutions on such lessons. 

The philosophical schools see matter and consciousness as the two primal principles of creation, and nature to be the primal mother of all beings – the sustainer, the giver of upādhi-s or faculties of experience, the provider of phenomenal experiences that beget beings the three-fold experiences of life. In the capacity of the primal giver, She is also the primal teacher, the giver of the most instinctive to the most sublime knowledge. Thus the knowledge that man gains from his experience of nature, forms the basis both for the knowledge system and the social institutions that he creates and keeps refining. 

For instance the principle of complementarity as learnt from nature, from phenomena like day and night, male and female, matter and consciousness. It is then articulated as nyāya-s like pangvāndha and daghdhāśva-dagdharatha, and applied at all levels of the Hindu knowledge. At the level of epistemology and spiritual philosophy, it is employed for deductively establishing the premises of philosophical schools like Sānkhya. At the theological level it is seen as the complementarity of head and central deities. At the micro level in society it is seen as the complementarity of head and center of family. 

What changes and what does not change, and what should be the basis for a permanent institution and what not, is something that is learned from the transient and intransient phenomena of nature. The longevity of Hindu institutions is owing to the fact that they are based on unchanging principles of world such as consciousness and not on ideals. This is precisely the reason why it is called the eternal order or the Sanātana Dharma. Hinduism reposes trust in Nature and the intrinsic nature of beings. So the Hindu institutions are fashioned after nature – to be self-sustaining, self-regulating and evolving. 

Hindu worldview not only sees nature as a teacher, but sees human as an indistinguishable element of nature. Evolution of human society is a fact learned from the bigger system – evolution in nature. Natural order is inherently “just” (by the principle of dharma), although means employed are just and unjust, moral and immoral, fair and unfair – towards the ends of serving the evolutionary and ultimately just cause. Thus Hindu worldviews trust human nature as much, and assume that if founded on principles close to nature, human society is capable of evolving itself into the highest possible civilized order. Collective morality is a consequence of this, and builds from the individual. 

In stark contrast, the occidental institutions inherently distrust nature. They primarily believe in envisioning a human system that makes use of and exploits nature rather than trusting its inherent fair or moral nature. Ideals like fairness, freedom and equality are sought to be achieved in the western institutions by controlling the society and running it with those ideals. This precisely is the reason why state in the west assumes so much of control over the nation while a Hindu state merely kept facilitating the nation. Thus regulation in occidental societies is imposed by state and not through society’s inherent self-regulation. Ideals are temporal manifestations of the dynamic principle of truth. Western institutions are based on evolving ideals, hence remaining only temporally applicable and valid. So we see new ideologies and institutions emerging, one to fix what the other broke. 

The reason for this is that the west sees nature primarily as a form of matter rather than a form of consciousness. Hence only the cruder and physical aspects are learned from nature, as a physical mother. This concept does not permeate the deeper layers of consciousness, since they are not sought to be seen in the nature. 

Social Order and Morality

In dhārmic worldviews, being is seen as having concentric layers or sheaths, and goals of life are four-fold and orthogonal to these sheaths. Dharma or righteousness forms the bottommost and first to be achieved, based on which any other goal or fulfillment is made possible. This makes dharma an obligation for every fulfillment, for all the pursuits corresponding to all the layers of hierarchy. In dhārmic societies, the consciousness quality and moral scheme form the basis for the social design. 

Dharma is not based on ideals but on nature, and thus defines the functions of each role that beings involve in at different levels of collectivity. As an individual, as a member of a family in different capacities, as a member of society, as a sustaining element of several institutions, he has varied roles, and through all these he is ultimately fulfilling himself and bringing completeness to his being through his experiences. Thus dharma builds from the individual, and does not flow from top as ideals like freedom and equality do. While needs are hierarchical according to Maslow, it does not really mean human pursuits are hierarchical – they are constrained by several factors, situational or otherwise. What ensures the fulfillment of these needs, is the stratification of pursuits corresponding to these needs and creation of spheres where such pursuits are possible. This happens with the definition of goals of these pursuits – which in the Hindu context are the four-fold purposes of life, three-fold experiences, three-fold states and the one experience that underlies all this – happiness. 

Goals of Life

Dharma aligns the being, its aspirations and capabilities with the infinite possibilities of fulfillment of potential of the being. The fulfillment of one’s Dharma results in striking rhythm with one’s true nature. Striking rhythm with the individual’s true nature is the way to uncover the immense potential of the being. Hence Dharma is the first goal of life, whose fulfillment forms the basis for fulfillment of higher goals. It positions people for the highest goals by aligning with the evolution of beings. The more evolved people are, the less personal and more impersonal their pursuits are. Maslow attests this fact too when he says “self-actualizing people…are involved in a cause outside their own skin”. They are driven by needs in the early stage, then by ego, and then by truth-consciousness. 

There are two main phases in life and evolution. The first phase is a growth phase – which is essentially materially enriching. Artha and kāma, the two goals contingent on Dharma, are the ones pursued in this phase. This is the pravṛtti phase. In this phase man not only caters to his self-esteem and other desires, but primarily contributes to the creation of wealth/resources and sustenance of social institutions. The second phase is essentially internal enrichment and outward detachment. Moksha or the state of highest happiness is the goal of human pursuits in this phase. In this phase man continues to contribute in the creation of knowledge. In our worldviews goals are not seen as hierarchical, but as phased. 

The possibility of pursuing goals arises from (1) capability and potential of an individual (2) social opportunity. In dhārmic societies, the higher the goal is, the lesser is the dependence of man on external means and social opportunity.  Thus, there is a detachment of social opportunity which makes higher goals reachable for society regardless of its stratification in terms of power and economy. 

While there is a natural requirement of qualification for persons to certain offices in the state hierarchy or specialized social functions, the pursuit of highest goals of life does not require any such qualification. Thus unconditional happiness or moksha sādhana is a birth right of every being, regardless of capability, quality of birth (even species of birth as a matter of fact). 

Individual and Society

The way an individual is related to society and state in a dhārmick society is based on an ideal resolution of the vyaṣṭi-samiṣṭi dichotomy. Man’s concentric life layers are well acknowledged – individual, family, community, nation, state, universe etc. In the form of multiple levels of collectivity, there is a graded guard of individual freedom – both in terms of enabling and constraining it. Power is also accumulated at different levels, thus empowering the society without excessively empowering the state. Thus a more intimate and aware collectivity continuously helps individuals guide their lives, while at the same time enabling them to execute social functions with a collective instead of individual capital. The immense social strength that this arrangement gives, can be seen from the resilience of India in the face of relentless attacks on its civilization for centuries – something hardly visible anywhere else in the world. For the most part societies can retain only that identity which the state foists on them – as can be seen all over the Middle-East and Europe for instance. But in India even after centuries of alien state and a currently prevailing proxy-colonial state, the society’s identity remains what her national and social identity had been for ages. 

Concepts of nation and state

The traditional idea of Bhārata has two aspects, the rājyaand rāṣṭra. Rājya corresponds to state (polity, administration etc), and rāṣṭrato cultural – social-national aspects. 

Bhārata – The Rāṣṭhtra

Rāṣṭra is approximately nation-culture, which comprises of 56 geo-cultural units traditionally called the chappan(na) deśa-s (though some of these fall outside present Indian borders). Understanding these deśa-s is essential to understand the diversity and stratification in Indian culture. While the layout of rājya-s kept changing with political vicissitudes, while the rājya-s kept merging and breaking up into different empires, the deśa-s remained to be regarded as the units that comprise the nation/subcontinent (varsha/khanḍa). The practice of describing the span of empires in terms of deśa-s, goes to show the significance of deśa-s in the basic understanding of the subcontinent. Able emperors could control more than a deśa, and a deśa could also have multiple small kingdoms at times. But the deśa as a basic unit transcended the more transient and constantly realigning rājya-s. This is the reason why the stream of civilizational and cultural enrichment continued uninterrupted in the subcontinent irrespective of political realignments. The presence of a strong empire resulted in patronage and high points of civilizational pursuits. However there was rarely any destructive effect on cultural diversity or identities of these deśa-s. 

Importantly, the deśa remained a well-defined concept which is almost agnostic of the rājya. For all non-political purposes, Bhārata’s geography has often been described in terms of deśa-s. For instance Varahamihira in his BṛhatSamhita categorizes the deśa-s of Bhārata into different seismic zones. More on this can be seen in the paper “Earthquake prediction in Ancient India” by Prof. RN Iyengar. Lawgivers dealt with validity of local customs and practices based on deśa-s. Panini alludes to rules of grammar with respect to local language practices based on deśa-s. Thus understanding of deśa is fundamental to understanding Bhārata. 

The cohesion of peoples in the subcontinent and their cultural affinities in the diverse landscape, need to be understood on the basis of these deśa-s. It also needs to be understood that these deśa-s were regarded as part of Bhārata. This tells us the nature of oneness of Bhārata ingrained in the Indian mind for ages. The cultural affinities between peoples of the same deśa are pronounced, and it is easy to find more similarity between cultural units/jāti-s (belonging to the same strata) of the same deśa than people of same jāti of different deśa-s. This is the reason we prefer the word geo-cultural unit for a deśa. 

Besides, an integral view of the entire Bhāratavarsha as a rashtra is visible from several integration themes – for instance the Saktipeetha-s and Jyotirlinga-s, the spiritual unification centers that people cover. What more concept of geo-religious oneness does one require to see, than the sthala-purāṅa of Kanyākumāri saying the Devi waits to get married to Śiva coming from Kailāsa of Himalayas? The landscape covered by Pānḍavas during their exile or Śri Rāma during his exile are other classical integration themes. 

Thus in the traditional Bhārata, the different collectivities like jāti, deśa, sampradaya acted as a web of interrelated unifying themes, comprising the rāṣṭra. History of Bhārata stands witness to the fact that such unity proved to be more powerful than political oneness in keeping the society united. Wherever and whenever this web of unifying motives was torn,, due to political, religious, cultural or social disruption, India suffered. 

Thus Bhārata had an evolved concept of orthogonal institutions of nation and state which give far greater autonomy to the nation than a nation-state does. Geo cultural and Geo political are distinct, as depicted in the figure below: 

Figure 4Cultural-political vs Political geography

The geo-cultural, though it is predominantly about the habited civilization of 56 deśa-s, expands all the way up to khanḍa, dvīpa (continent) and vasundhara (the earth) and gives the sense of vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam (global family of mankind). The inherent openness of Bhāratīya traditions and people, be it in readily accepting other peoples or their ways of lives or the diversity of thought and life systems and worldviews, reflects in and is made possible by the separation of geo-cultural and geo-political. The principle is universal and applicable for all times: be accommodating at people level, at polity level be shrewd and discriminative mindful of nation’s interests. 

Our society runs on the basis of a complex set of institutions with due checks and balances. Hence it has the vitality to self-regulate, self-correct and evolve with times. Most of the course corrections in our institutions came from within the society in the form of seers, teachers, scholars and samskarta-s (civilizers/refiners, not reformers). Thus this nation is used to a far higher degree of freedom (given by responsibility) than a nation-state gives its nation in the west. 

Figure 5Macro view of institutions of Bhārata

Society in India is strong and this is the reason individual enjoys much greater degree of liberty compared to west where state has much larger control over the families and individuals. Whether it is allowing kids to sit in the parent’s lap in a car or choosing the emphasis of “formal” literate education the state decides a lot more about individual lives than the real stakeholders in the individuals’ lives: family community etc. Indian society feels scuttled and its liberties snatched by the present state, as it legislates matters that society is capable of taking care of and make more balanced and calibrated corrections than state can. State/law is a last resort and cannot act as nation/character builder. Society with its self-regulation and cultural-spiritual traditions alone can do it. The case for restoring the nation’s self-control is a significant part of our freedom struggle, whether or not it is well articulated before independence. Post-independence in 1947, state defined by our new constitution has only very partially and unsuccessfully fulfilled this craving. 

India the nation state

Given the original Hindu understanding of Bhārata, it is easy to notice that the organization of India since independence is not exactly in line with the former. To be fair, the post-colonial Indian organization was an uphill task of integrating hundreds of princely states (which themselves have nothing to do with the deśa-s). And they were subsequently organized into 25+ states, some of them supposedly on the basis of language. While the choice of Hindi instead of Sanskrit as a national language had its issues, the main problem in linguistic division is that it revolts against the very concept of cultural diversity represented by linguistic diversity. For instance, the Hindu rājya-s preserved cultural and linguistic diversity while the states of today impose a single official state language. This is an anti-thesis of the cultural unity-diversity that prevailed in the nation for centuries. 

The post-colonial nation-state is merely a geo-political concept that does not take any cognizance of the original concept of geo-cultural units that built the civilization of this great nation. 

The political organization becomes basis for law, and landscape for such organization in turn is described entirely unrelated to geo-cultural units. This is in sharp contrast to the way kingdoms described their landscape based on geo-cultural units and towns/villages belonging to those units. This is a primary distinction between a nation-state and rāṣṭra. The former is only political in nature whereas the latter is cultural in its essence, and defines political with respect to the cultural landscape.  The implications of such definition are many. In the rāṣṭra, the variety of life, customs, linguistic and cultural preferences, social practices of these landscapes form part, and even drive to a certain extent, the state policies and lawmaking. They do not merely become accommodated factors to an otherwise sought-to-be-uniform union policy pervading the entire nation. Civil and social liberties are not accommodated but drive the policy. 

The education designed by the post-colonial state machinery do not teach native culture or geography or natural resources or civilizational story related to these units which remained a permanent feature of this nation for ages, right from pre-Vedic times to pre-independence. This makes the Indians view the nation through colonial and political prism, in contrast to the way this nation has always seen and identified itself. This colonial consciousness is not merely a hangover of colonial period but a persistent feature of the geo-political concept of nation-state. The education does not teach the essence or nature of the institutions of nation and society, and as a result of this the experiences of one’s society and surroundings is not shaped in consonance with the workings of those institutions. The various integration motives that act as a web, acting in the society, are not taught as a web of motives since the cultural view of nation is not taken cognizance of. Simply put, post-colonial education de-Indianizes one’s experiences of India. 

For instance jāti is presented not as a unit of cohesion but as a unit of rivalry. However, the fact is that multiple jāti-s of the same deśa have greater cohesion than people of same jāti across deśa-s. But unless this is taught in perspective neither kinds of cohesion are treated as cohesion: both are seen as “caste” and “regional” prejudices. Thus the immense positive potential, a real and social experience, presented as a negative feature of the society. Similarly the fact that master-disciple lineages are primary reason for our civilizational continuity, are presented as some sort of principle of exclusion. The fact that extraordinary skill and perfection was achieved in the skill group guilds is presented as a sort of imposition and lack of civil liberty: a notion easily negated by the very fact of excellence achieved. Thus the non-cognizance of cultural view results in seeing as negative even the most positive aspects of the institutions of society. 

Thus in the current arrangement all those collective arrangements that earlier acted as integration motives, are now seen as, hence even acting as disintegration motives. Religious, cultural and linguistic bonds are way stronger than regional urban-rural cultural bonds, and this explains why India today suffers more lack of unity at people level than in the pre-colonial times. Caste, language, region based rivalry and jingoism are essentially colonial and post-colonial phenomena. This is because rāṣṭra the web of integration motives is not taken cognizance of by the nation-state, nor does it form the basis for understanding the nation for which the state is being defined. 

Geo-political linguistic states that bind one language-one polity do not take cognizance of the deśa-s and their cultures and languages. Hindu rājya-s explicitly described themselves as a collection of these cultural units and designed their policies per them (the deśa-kAla layer of constitutions is designed thus), the post-colonial states that unified princely states aggregated themselves into single-language states which caused active discouragement to the development of cultures and languages. While Sanskrit as a link language integrates and does not stifle the development of regional dialects and languages (which is how Indian languages flourished in the first place), English-Hindi as union’s link languages hardly helped such harmony. 

A few prominent examples of conflict because of nation-state’s monolithic political nature can be listed here. 

1. Vidarbha grievances under Marāṭhā state. Marāṭhā Empire was a collection of several deśa-s, vidarbha being one of them. In contrast Maharashtra the post-independence state is a Marathi state not defined as inclusive of these deśa-s and their languages or cultures. 
2. Telangana grievance under Andhra Pradesh: the landscape traditionally is Andhra-Trilinga-Kalinga deśa-s which was unified into Andhra Pradesh, making it a geo-linguistic entity. 
3. Excessive emphasis of Dravidian distinctiveness right from influencing foreign policy 
4. Konkanis grievances under Kannada state: Today’s Karnataka state encompasses konkaNa and karnATa deśa-s, while officially accommodating and pushing Kannada language. 
5. Gorkha grievances under Bangla state, which are again ethno-linguistic-cultural. 

The derecognition of a cultural landscape that can exist agnostic of state conception, and more importantly a proxy-colonial state which is not founded in the long known Hindu ideals, resulted in a near-complete curtailment of Hindu culture and civilizational progress. It can be argued that these grievances are resulting in formation of smaller states which may eventually align with the deśa-s. However, that does not explain why a political entity like state should be unable to, by its design, ably and harmoniously govern a landscape that consists of multiple deśa-s or cultural units and why such grievances should arise in the first place. The answer is the fact that nation-state is about one language-one nation-one people and this does not by design accommodate a multi-cultural multi-language multi-people system like Bhārata.

The nation-state defined by our constitution is thus fundamentally incompatible with Bhārata.

Continued ……

Image credit: The Hans India

Courtesy: https://www.indica.today/research/raja-dharma-series-iv-b/

Scope Of Smṛti And Nature Of A Dhārmic State – Part 1 - Shankar Bharadwaj Khandavalli

 Abstract

After independence in 1947 this is arguably the most opportune time for us to contemplate on a constitution and a state design that aligns best with the nation. Right from the notion of nation-state and union of states, to rights to ideals like equality to choice of democracy to secularism, the modern systems known were adopted in Indian constitution. There has not been an analysis or a debate of whether these align with Bhārata, there has only been an attempt to make these successful in Bhārata with an implicit assumption that Bhārata should scale up to these ideals of modern age. Whether it is on the basis of a theory of polity or morality or social design, the choices never went through enough scrutiny. Today we have both the experience as a nation and the record of post-independence state institutions to make such an evaluation.

To be able to have a constitution and a state that best aligns with the nation, it is necessary to look at the notions of constitution, state, nation, morality and ideals as Bhāratīya-s understood for ages, how they evolved, and which of those were behind our glorious past, which of those need what level of adoption. Great nations can’t be built by a welfare state that focuses on lower functions of human consciousness (including wealth distribution). Great nations are a result of higher functions of human nature, of the highest level of human fulfillment, living the loftiest ideals and realizing the highest human experiences. We are a great civilization and a great nation built by Rāma, Kṛshṇa, Ṛshi-s and Devata-s, and we need a smṛti and a rājya that espouse their ideals to rebuild ourselves from the colonial shadows into glory.

The primary focus of the present paper is to present the scope of smṛti and the nature of a dhārmic state. We attempt to make a contrast with the present constitution and nation-state, not with focus on a comparative analysis or critique of the present system. Most of the present day ideals and notions are assumed and taken for granted and this makes it necessary to present a contrast before the true nature of a dhārmic state and smriti can be understood, unbiased by such assumptions.

Such an exercise would begin with a comparison of the foundational texts of collective organization, the smṛti-s of traditional Bhārata with the Indian constitution. The bases for comparing and contrasting a Bhāratīya smṛti with Indian constitution do not merely happen to be ideals or policies. Comparison needs to be of the very bases of the texts and their scheme, the worldview and principles that form the basis for those ideals and policies, the collective organization and manifest results of implementing those ideals and policies in the nation.

This exercise involves multiple challenges. Primary challenge is that there is no clear epistemic basis for such evaluation. For instance, modern constitutions assume several ideals that are not refutable within the framework of constitution. The ideals themselves have to be refuted outside the framework of constitution, while the policies assuming those ideals need to be debated within the framework. In contrast a smṛti text spells out an ontological basis from which its ideals emerge and the source texts that form basis for the axiomatic content of the smṛti. In fact this feature is common to most Bhāratīya texts – there is always a meta content available based on which content could be modified or codified. For instance aṣṭādhyāyi is not a grammar text written in Sanskrit but in upadeśa, a meta language. Similarly smṛti is not directly a constitution or a book of law but includes meta text that enunciates guiding principles for framing such books. The constitution and smṛti are thus texts at different levels, one gospel-like and the other refutable.

In brief, the paper contrasts the salient features of present constitution with a traditional smṛti. Broadly these features are of two kinds –

1. Document level features: These include meta content that contextualizes the core content of the document, helps audit, internal consistency and updates, manages the multiple layers of content in a non-conflicting way.
2. Content level features: These include the universal principles, scheme of morality and ontological bases of the text; considerations such as permanent-temporal and micro-macro underlying the design of institutions; the nature of nation as the text sees it and the nature of state designed by the text.

We propose how a constitution would structure itself, if based on dharma and Bhāratīya principles of constitution and law making. This includes the nature of dharma, multiple layers of text in a smṛti, such as the eternal, temporal, region specific, multiple aspects of the content of the text. There is far little emphasis on political model and executive since they become corollaries and emerge as a result of a right understanding of rāshṭra and dharma śāstra. The primary focus is on how the meta content determines the nature of state and society. The orthogonality of geo-political (state/rājya) and geo-cultural (nation/rāshṭra), the principles underlying various institutions and the bases for their formation and evolution rather than the institutional structure itself, will remain the focus. The considerations in a constitution that explicitly and implicitly allude to the different aspects of the nation and society, their relative significance and insignificance in different layers of the text becomes a secondary focus. For instance, how the assumption of a diverse society results in constitutional provisions as compared to the assumption of a monolithic religious society.

We attempt to present the nature of a dhārmic state that bases itself on such a smṛti. Some of the principles of a dharmic state (such as prajāranjakatva &śikshā dakshata, yāthā rājā tathā prajā etc.), and their influence on policy and law making are identified. Instances from the manifest layers and policies are used more as examples to explicate the point rather than as an attempt to demonstrate the merit of a policy. Some of the problem spaces such as the trade-off between civil liberties and state authority, social order and identities, integration motifs in the institutions, the way they get formalized in a constitution are identified. It is also identified, for completeness, what does not form part of a smṛti and what forms part of a temporal executive.

Introduction

After independence in 1947 there was an opportunity for us to create a constitution and design a state that aligns best with the nation. However, we have adopted a colonial state with little criticism of ideals and institutions, while amending the aspects that appeared coercive in the colonial state. Right from the notion of nation-state and union of states, to rights to ideals like equality to choice of democracy to secularism, mostly the modern systems known were adopted in Indian constitution. There has not been an analysis or a debate of whether these align with Bhārata, there has only been an attempt to make these successful in Bhārata with an implicit assumption that Bhārata should scale up to these ideals of modern age. Whether it is based on a theory of polity or morality or social design, the choices never went through enough scrutiny.

It is therefore necessary to evaluate the ideals of modern Indian state, their suitability and their bases, with Bhārata, her ideals, notions of nation, individual and collective morality forming the frame of reference. Only then could one arrive at the right set of ideals and institutions best suited for the abhyudaya of Bhārata.

Such a contrast could start by comparing the foundational texts of collective organization, the smṛti-s of traditional Bhārata with the Indian constitution. The bases for comparing and contrasting a Bhāratīya smṛti with Indian constitution do not merely happen to be the ideals or policies. Comparison needs to be of the very bases of the texts and their scheme, the worldview and principles that form the basis for those ideals and policies, the collective organization and manifest results of implementing those ideals and policies in the nation.

This exercise involves multiple challenges. Primary challenge is that there is no clear epistemic basis for such evaluation. For instance, modern constitutions assume several ideals that are not refutable within the framework of constitution. The ideals themselves have to be refuted outside the framework of constitution, while the policies assuming those ideals need to be debated within the framework. In contrast, a smṛti text does not base itself on assumed ideals but spells out an ontological basis from which its ideals emerge and the source texts that form basis for the axiomatic content of the smṛti. Smṛti is not directly a law book or constitution, but is multi-layered and has meta content that enunciates guiding principles for framing such books, along with sections of specific content that is modifiable based on the former.

Layout

To be able to examine the scope of a smṛti and the nature of a dhārmic state, the paper is divided into sections that;

1. Draw a brief contrast of constitution from a traditional smṛti to indicate the structural and conceptual differences.
2. The moral scheme underlying a smṛti.
3. A structural and institutional view of Bhārata, the notions of state and nation.
4. Briefly contrast traditional institutional structure from nation-state.
5. Explore how a constitution would structure itself, if based on native principles of constitution and law making.

Constitution

The constitution of a nation gives an idea of how a nation views herself, her identity and her cherished ideals. Constitution at least in the present sense, while broadly identifying the nation and indirectly referring to nationhood, defines a state that governs the nation, ideals of state and a framework of rights. While some of these are universal in nature, the state’s commitment towards nation and her identity, her cherished principles and ways of life, is almost assumed. Laws are derived from these ideals and rights, towards protecting/achieving those.

However, this structure itself is a relatively modern evolution. The traditional constitutions in India, the smṛti-s, are structured not to begin with defining a state but from universal-eternals, then explaining human nature, then the bases for defining a state, and the land where the law of land applies. The structural difference between the foundational documents is equally important to understand as the difference in the content, since such difference is also directly related to the macro aspects of how those documents see the world, man, nation, state.

Table 1 depicts a high level contrast between smṛti and constitution. Smṛti first engages in explaining the universals, then the specifics of human nature, and the bases for making laws as rooted in those. A scheme of morality is first spelt out even before law is made. Constitution in contrast, spells out the ideals for a state but does not spell out a moral scheme based on which the laws are made.

Broadly, it could be claimed that a smṛti is best designed for inherited societies whose main features are (a) a stream of knowledge traditions (b) an institutional structure that is adaptable and evolutionary. In contrast, a modern constitution is best designed for an organized society where state deals more directly with individuals.

Constitution defines a framework of rights and enlists the rights of individuals that are protected by the state. That rights are subject to state granting those, is implicit in this. In a smṛti there are no individual rights specified, one’s liberty is unbound until it is breaching a law or violating others’ natural liberties. This is vastly different from the notion of right, because rights are granted and protected by state whereas individual liberties are protected and determined by one’s own nature and conduct where the state’s role is passive. The seeds of individual action and human fulfillment through action – individual and collective are sown right in the dharma śāstra-s, as the cherished ideal of the Indian peoples for ages. This, thus, is a nation made by people – not as a euphemism but the way this nation defined herself. Fulfillment of being, through action, through fulfillment of desires and achievements, through inaction and through diverse experiences of life, fulfilling the purposes of life, becomes the basis for defining what state does to protect these. The primal human aspirations are identified, whose legitimate fulfillment (in a way it does not infringe similar fulfillment of other beings) is an ability that nature confers on individuals – through individual actions, through collectivities.

Table 1 Contrast between Traditional smṛti and Constitution

Constitution should reflect an understanding of the characteristic features of a nation and define state in a way that the interests of nation are best served. On the contrary, against the above backdrop, the post-independence Indian constitution tries to define how the nation should be. Instead of defining a state that aligns with and protects the nation, it imposes notions that revolt against the basic nature of this nation. While the table above and sections below keep drawing the contrast between the nation-state envisioned by post-colonial constitution and a dhārmic rājya-rāṣṭra envisioned by smṛti-s, the focus of this essay is not to establish that the post-colonial constitution does not align with the nation. It is a given and natural that it does not align. It is also natural that our constitution and state cause damage to the nation and her institutional structure.

We limit the scope of this essay to anecdotes rather than elaborate data, mainly to convey the thought than to demonstrate it. To clarify, data is important and data does get debated in public discourse today, and there is no shortage of details. For instance, the bad side-effects of discriminative caste policies and politicization of caste, the logical inconsistency in a secular state controlling religious institutions of Hindus, unequal treatment of various groups while setting the ideal of equality are not without mention in the last few decades. There is, however a shortage of debate on the institutional structure and the worldview and concepts underlying that structure.

The contrast between the post-colonial and traditional systems is drawn primarily to take focus back to how we can rediscover ourselves sans colonial thought rather than attempting to quantify the damage.

Morality

A scheme of morality is the primary assumption of a constitution, something that it does not define but makes use of. Indian constitution was derived from western constitutions, many of the acts continued from British times. They are mostly based on Victorian Christian morality. Recent judgments observed the need to change these to a more recent, post-modern moral assumption such as decriminalizing LGBT etc. Many laws are called outdated because the ideals underlying these laws are changing with times.

There are collective ideals and individual morals. Constitution assumes both along the lines of western Christian view of man and world. The impact of this can be seen only when there is a contrast drawn with Hindu moral scheme (dharma), how it works and its implications in individual and collective life and lawmaking.

A proper contrast between Dharma and western morality can come not merely by comparing the moral frameworks of East and West, but by comparing the consciousness frameworks from where the human conduct (ethical or otherwise) is understood and explained.

Dharma

Nature can be understood through two of its primal aspects – consciousness quality (guṇa) and action (karma). Dharma or natural righteous order is determined by these two aspects. This is one of the foundational notions in Dhārmik systems, and is visible in the society, language, culture and view of life. Dharma as the goal of life is the fulfillment of dharma the natural order. Dharma or righteousness is not an imperative (like hypothetical or categorical imperative), but a purpose of life. Goals of life are four-fold, and fulfillment of being and attainment of complete happiness can happen through their attainment. Since dharma is the aligning principle of the nature of a being and its actions and thus its fulfillment, dharma is itself the first and foremost goal whose fulfillment leads to the fulfillment of the remaining three.

Fulfillment of purposes of life, attainment of happiness through the different faculties of consciousness (senses, mind, intellect, ego and the entire being) in a graded way is the basic theme in Sanātana Dharma. Attainment of happiness of the highest order (ānanda) is the end to which all human aspiration is, according to all the worldviews (darśanas). Dharma is natural righteous order which manifests in all beings, something existent and learnt from nature. It is the law which determines the experiences of beings and fruits of action. It is the basic law of cause and effect, on which the theory of karma is based. Dharma is thus the intrinsic nature of beings. And dhārmik acts like speaking the truth and being nonviolent, is the intrinsic nature of beings.

What becomes a “law” in dhārmik framework is something that is in the intrinsic nature of beings. Thus an “imperative” in Dharma traditions if one has to state, would be as simple as– “realize your true nature, be true to your nature”. This actually relates directly to actors, actions, situations and consciousness, and is not limited to stating moral facts. When there is a cosmic order that is pervasive and whose micro manifestation is the intrinsic nature, the order can hardly be subjective – it is universal by definition, while at the same time keeping in tune with the phenomenal diversity.

Nature and action are both rooted in consciousness. To understand dharma it is necessary to understand Indic consciousness studies. Consciousness study is a well-developed subject and influences most of the subjects, metaphysical as well as physical. Understanding consciousness qualities and consciousness layers/sheaths helps us understand the bases for concepts like Dharma too. In Hinduism the source of morality is consciousness itself, and manifests differently at different levels of consciousness. The dhārmik behaviour or morality is in the intrinsic nature of beings, and how dhārmik or adhārmik an action is, is determined not just based on a moral law but on the basis of the consciousness quality and the sheath to which the being belongs.

There are five sheaths of consciousness, which are grouped into three bodies of the being. The outer sheaths have to do with physiological needs, inner/deeper ones with psychic plane and still deeper ones with impersonal knowledge. Human evolution is defined in terms of increasing manifestation of the intrinsic nature and decreasing manifestation of outward nature. An easy way to understand this model is to map these sheaths to Maslow’s pyramid of hierarchical needs. Thus the outward nature of a being is driven more by needs (of the lower layers of Maslow pyramid or the outer sheaths of consciousness) and the intrinsic nature is driven more by urge for knowledge, aesthetics etc. (corresponding to upper layers of Maslow pyramid or inner sheaths of consciousness). So when we say the being’s intrinsic nature is to be truthful, it is because the object of consumption of intrinsic nature is truth-beauty (self-actualization and self-transcendence layers of Maslow pyramid) and not food-sense pleasure-ego gratification (physiological, survival, self-esteem layers of Maslow pyramid). So to speak the truth is the default intrinsic nature, which can be distorted by lower needs of man. We can apply the same logic to another moral fact – of nonviolence. While violence is an extrinsic natural fact and a basic survival method, and life sustains by consuming life, nonviolence still becomes a default in intrinsic nature.

The different aspects like morality, purposes of life, consciousness, happiness and excellence, epistemology and cosmic philosophy form part of a complex concept like Dharma which acts as the main guide of life in dhārmic worldviews. There is a common structure of knowledge and society in the east that reconciles and develops the several aspects of life and different forms of knowledge, and that is rooted in dharma.

Continued …….

Image credit: picxy

Courtesy: https://www.indica.today/research/raja-dharma-series-iv-a/