Prachin Bharatiya Dandniti

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Prachin Bharatiya Dandniti" by Tejsinh Gaud, focusing on the concept of penal policy in ancient India as depicted in Jain literature:

The author, Tejsinh Gaud, begins by highlighting that Jain Agam literature and other Jain texts, while primarily religious and philosophical, contain a significant amount of information on various other subjects, including history, sociology, science, economics, mathematics, Ayurveda, and political science. He emphasizes the need for a systematic study of these texts to uncover new insights into these diverse fields. This particular essay aims to provide a concise overview of the penal policy (Dandniti) as described in Jain literature, a topic that has not been widely explored or brought to public attention. The author hopes this work will contribute to understanding the evolution and nature of penal policy within Jain literary traditions.

The Genesis of Penal Policy:

The text suggests that in the initial stages of human civilization, described as akin to the "Satyug" or Golden Age, a state of harmony prevailed, with no conflicts or disputes. This was governed by the system of "Kulakars" (clan leaders). However, as the efficacy of the wish-fulfilling trees (Kalpavrikshas) diminished, people developed increasing attachment and possessiveness towards them. This led to the emergence of discord, enmity, and ultimately, the commission of offenses. This societal breakdown necessitated measures to curb criminal tendencies, marking the advent of penal policy. Prior to this, such policies were unnecessary due to the absence of crime.

Early Forms of Penal Policy in Jain Literature:

Jain literature, according to the text, indicates the initial prevalence of three forms of penal policy:

1. Haakaar Niti (Reproach Policy): Introduced during the time of Kulakar Vimalvahan, this policy involved verbally admonishing the offender with regretful words. The offender would be told, "Ha! What have you done?" This was a purely verbal punishment, yet it carried immense weight at the time. The text explains that because people in that era were naturally shy and modest, unlike modern individuals, this verbal chastisement was perceived as a severe punishment, almost akin to a death sentence. This policy remained in effect until the time of Kulakar Chakshushman.

2. Maakaar Niti (Prohibitory Policy): The text posits that no single policy remains permanent. As the "Haakaar Niti" began to falter and offenses increased, a new policy became necessary. Kulakar Yashasvin, son of Chakshushman, differentiated between offenses and introduced separate policies. For minor offenses, the "Haakaar Niti" was retained, while for more serious ones, the "Maakaar Niti" was implemented. The meaning of "Maakaar" was "Do not do it." This prohibitive approach was a significant form of punishment. The system of both "Haakaar" and "Maakaar" policies continued until the time of Yashasvin's son, Abhichandra.

3. Dhikkaar Niti (Condemnation Policy): As societal deficiencies and discontent grew, leading to indiscipline and audacity, the "Haakaar" and "Maakaar" policies alone could not maintain order. When the "Maakaar Niti" also proved inadequate, the "Dhikkaar Niti" emerged in its place. This policy, used from Kulakar Prashenjit to the last Kulakar Nabhi, involved condemning the offender with the word "Dhik" (Shame on you) for their actions.

Further Development and Diversification of Penal Policy:

The text further elaborates on the classification of these policies based on the severity of offenses, citing Upacharya Shri Devendra Muni Ji:

• For grave offenses: "Khed" (regretful admonition)
• For moderate offenses: "Nishedh" (prohibition)
• For severe offenses: "Tiraskaar" (contemptuous rejection)

These symbolic punishments were considered more impactful than capital punishment at the time.

The Role of Rishabhanath and Bharata:

The text notes differing scholarly opinions on when these policies were implemented. Some believe the first two were introduced during Rishabhanath's era, and the latter two during Bharata's. Others, like Acharya Abhaydev, place all four policies during Bharata's time. Acharya Bhadrabahu and Acharya Malaygiri suggest that binding (Bandhan) and striking (Ghat) with a stick began during Rishabhanath's time, while capital punishment (Mrityudand) started with Bharata. According to Jinasenacharya, physical punishments like binding and fettering were introduced during Bharata's reign.

During Rishabhanath's time, the prevailing penal system included three types of punishments based on the offense:

1. Artha-haran Dand (Confiscation of Property): Fines.
2. Shaaririk Klesh Roop Dand (Punishment involving Physical Pain): Torture.
3. Pran-haran Roop Dand (Capital Punishment): Execution.

Rishabhanath himself established four specific penal measures for the welfare of the kingdom:

1. Paribhash: Temporary confinement with stern verbal reprimands.
2. Mandal Bandh: Restriction of movement to a specific area.
3. Charak: Imprisonment.
4. Chhavi Chhed: Mutilation of limbs or body parts.

Specific Offenses and Punishments:

The essay then delves into the details of various offenses and their corresponding punishments prevalent during ancient times, drawing from sources like Nishithbhashya:

• Theft (Chaurya Karma): This was a prominent crime. Thieves employed various methods, including tunneling and using tools to open locks. They were organized into groups and operated from hidden "Chorpalliyan" (thief settlements) in remote areas. The punishments for theft were severe, including being enclosed in heated iron vessels, hand amputation, public humiliation, and beating. Descriptions of thieves' punishments include having their ears, noses, and lips cut off, and being paraded with drums, announcing their crimes. Some thieves were so cruel that they killed their own family members to conceal stolen goods.

• Types of Thieves:

  • Aamosh: Looters of wealth.
  • Lomhaar: Those who looted wealth and also took lives, even killing humans to save themselves.
  • Granthi-bhedak: Those who broke knots (of bags/containers) to steal.
  • Taskar: Daily thieves.
  • Kannuhaar: Kidnappers of girls.

• Other Offenses:

  • Per-gamana (Adultery): Punishable by shaving the head, scolding, beating, castration, exile, or death.
  • Murder: Punishable by fines and capital punishment.

Prison Conditions:

The text describes the prison conditions as extremely pitiable, with inmates subjected to severe hardships, starvation, thirst, and exposure to extreme temperatures. They often suffered from diseases due to being confined in their own filth, and their bodies were sometimes thrown into ditches after death. Prisoners were also subjected to various restraints, beaten with whips made of bamboo, cane, and leather, and impaled with hot iron rods or needles.

Conclusion and Modern Relevance:

The author concludes by stating that as civilization and culture have advanced, so too have offenses. This has led to a continuous increase in crime and a corresponding evolution in penal systems. He observes that in the current era, stress, mental anguish, greed, attachment, hatred, egoism, violence, theft, smuggling, kidnapping, and dishonesty are on the rise. The author suggests that adherence to Asteya (non-stealing) is the ultimate remedy for the stress and suffering faced by humanity today. He notes that Jain society, in comparison to other Indian societies, continues to uphold vows with great sincerity and faith, which has contributed to the Jain religion's resilience throughout history. The text calls for a systematic and detailed study of Jain literature on this subject, hoping that such work can guide society.

In essence, "Prachin Bharatiya Dandniti" by Tejsinh Gaud, as presented in this excerpt, offers a valuable glimpse into the Jain perspective on the historical development of penal policies in ancient India, highlighting their moral and societal underpinnings and drawing parallels to contemporary ethical challenges.