Hindu justice - 4

...A Brahman could not be given a corporal punishment. No body could hurt a single strand of hair of Brahman. Further he could subvert the justice. A king could only ask him to leave the country without hurting him. If a man committed a crime to save a Brahman then it was not considered a crime. Because saving a Brahman was equivalent to saving dharma. A Brahman was dharma personified Thus he could not be convicted. When a capital punishment was well justified then he was to be tonsured only. So the maximum punishment for a Brahman was to hurt the hair on his head! It was the maximum punishment that could be given to him after a deliberate and long discussion; after all punishing a Brahman was a very risky thing. It was given only when dharma was endangered due to gross criminal act of some Brahman, which justified a capital punishment in case of other Varnas. The gravity of crime received lowest priority. There is no greater crime than killing a Brahman. Therefore all the kings avoided punishing the Brahmans.

The system of justice in Hindu society was completely Varna oriented with out any trace of equal justice. The same crime by different Varnas was viewed differently. The seriousness of the crime increased with the Varna of victim and reduced with the Varna of the accused. The punishments were caste graded. The lower the caste of accused the graver was the punishment. The caste of the accused and the victim played a role in different way. It was so because only the witnesses of the same caste were allowed to give the witness for the same caste. If the accused was from higher Varna then the lower Varnas witness could not give evidence against him. The act of lower Varnas giving any evidence against higher was adharmic.

This made the position of Brahmanas very safe; they were immune to judicial system and its power to convict. In a suit between accused of higher Varnas and victims of lower Varnas, there was no possibility of conviction because no person was willing to give evidence against his own Varna. Thus the justice process was diluted in favor of higher Varnas and the pious and pure lawmakers were the main beneficiaries. The actual justice was secondary to dharma. The concept of such a justice is truly enthralling and soothing and jubilating to Brahmanas who yearn for return of the same kind of days. The justice was more like a private enterprise of Brahmanas the fruits of which they alone enjoyed.

When Shudras could not get justice from the state, the question of justice to outcastes, untouchables or Chandals was never relevant. Actually the Shudras and outcastes were invisible to state. And the state was not visible to Shudras and untouchables who could only see a cruelly discriminating society. They lived in a perpetual state of cruel dharmic injustice. It was a system where the cries for justice from lowest two strata were lost in wilderness. It was a system of cruelties and mutilations par excellence. It was a great deterrent for potentially rebelling Shudras and untouchables...

Hindu justice - 3

...If any untouchable transgressed the dharma then he was imply killed while a Shudra was only mutilated. Most probably the pious lawmakers thought that the mutilation was mild so they allotted it to Shudras and a severer punishment of death to untouchables. The Varna difference had to be maintained.

If a man from higher Varna killed a Shudra then he was required to perform penance for six months or give ten cows and a bull to a Brahman. It is strange that a man – no, no a Shudra- is killed and one unrelated Brahman benefited; grand sense of justice! It was a fine way to transfer the wealth in favor of the pious honest and unselfish people. This punishment has not even an iota of justice in any way; whichever way one might look at it. It is another example of how the Brahmanas devised ways to enrich themselves. And the same kind of punishment was prescribed for killing a dog, a cat, an owl or a crow - so died a dog - so died a Shudra. The equivalent of life of a Shudra was life of a dog; most probably a street dog. A dog walking on its four legs; wagging its tail to please; hoping to get some food; scavenging for leftovers in garbage was equivalent to Shudra who was also supposed to depend on the leftovers of his master and serve him with all the humility and wag the tail likewise. The relations between a Shudra and his master were supposed to be like the relation between a dog and its owner. The lot of untouchables had to be worse.

Further a Shudra could not give evidence in a suit involving higher Varnas. It was so because of his lower status he could not be party to judge a high Varna man. A Shudra was to be treated in insulting terms in the court if he was allowed to give evidence. The born insulted was treated accordingly; great heritage!

If a Shudra defamed a Brahman then he had to suffer corporal punishment while others got away with a fine only. If he offended twice born then his offending part was to be cut off leaving behind a mutilated Shudra. If he grossly insulted a twice born then his tongue was to be cut off. If he contemptuously mentioned the jati of twice born then a ten inch long red hot iron rod was to be shoved in his mouth. If he arrogantly taught a Brahman his duties then hot was oil was required to be poured into his mouth. If he falsely claimed performance of rites to sanctify his body then he was to be fined two hundred coins. If he assaulted a twice born then his offending limb was to be cut off. In case he raised his hand or a stick to beat higher Varnas then his hand was to be cut off. It was a righteous religion. Was it not? If he kicked them then his foot was to be cut off. Mutilation was a very normal punishment in his case. And none could hurt the single strand of hair of a Brahman. If a Shudra tried to sit with them on the same seat with high Varnas then he was to be branded on the hips and his buttocks were to be gushed. The offending parts here were buttocks. If out of arrogance he spit on a high caste then his lips were to be cut off. Thus there were different ways devised to keep the Shudra with in his dharmically imposed limits and righteous place. As far as Shudras were concerned, it was a maiming system of mutilating justice. This justice appears to be a vicious animal controlled by the lawmakers Brahmanas who unleashed it on Shudra and untouchables whenever the occasion required...

Hindu justice -2

...The domination of Brahmanas is clearly evident in the judicial system of in Manusmriti. According to Manusmriti king who has no assistant cannot inflict the judicial punishment. So a king needed a single assistant or many assistants. Here it is evident that how these lawmakers devised the ways to transfer actual wealth and power to them. The highest social status alone was not sufficient. An assistant was mandatory for the king and as per the conditions the assistant had to be Brahman. This reserved judicial posts for Brahmans. The one who was administering could not be a fool. This effectively ruled out Shudras and those below them. He could not be greedy. This ruled out Vaisyas. He could not be a man given to sensual pleasures. This ruled out Kshatriyas. Only a learned man could be an assistant because delivering of justice meant handling sacred laws and which a Brahman could only do. Any learned Brahman was an appropriate authority in delivering dharmic justice.

Further in delivering justice, a king had to be lenient toward Brahmans. This meant that being a Brahman took precedence over justice from the very beginning. Of course it was very dharmic also. Here the concept of justice was diminished nicely. The justice became subjective from the very onset. The king had been declared to have been created for the protection of Varna dharma. When protecting Varna dharma it is necessary to keep in mind its hierarchy because otherwise the divine dharma would be corrupted and destroyed. In addition, anybody corrupting dharma faced the threat of hellish ostracization which meant no respect, no wealth, no money and a humiliating life with untouchables. No self-respecting, rational and sensible man could have taken that risk. It was the duty of king to see that all the Varnas discharged the duties ordained by dharma and especially the Vaisyas and Shudras. The king was supposed to follow the advice of learned Brahman. Further if he was not interested in discharging judicial duties then he was supposed to appoint a Brahman to do so. The heathen lower strata did not have the ability to do so. They lacked the social status and knowledge of sacred scriptures. Scriptures were the most important things in a scripture based society. Scriptures were in Sanskrit, a Dev-Bhasha or gods’ language thus the low people were grossly ignorant of their actual contents. All the men were subjected to the scriptures through their respective Varnas. A lower Varna man could not administer justice to higher Varnas because it would have been insubordination. Thus the only suitable candidate to administer justice without scratching dharma was the Brahman. A lower Varna man delivering judgement on higher Varna man went directly against the cosmic order created by man.

The suitors were to be examined in order of their Varnas which shows the importance of Varnas. The heathen ones could wait. The Brahmans knowing Vedas could not be forced to witness. And Chandals and outcastes were not allowed to witness. The inherent logic was that the four Varnas could not be convicted on the witness of the lowest stratum. In other words the witness was important in order of Varnas.

Also we have a judicial system which justifies the falsifying. Further, the witnesses were allowed to give false witness if it saved the life a man from any of the four Varnas. It may mean that the life of a man was very important; it could also have meant that the life of an untouchable or outcaste was worthless. This also meant that if someone from any of the four Varnas killed a man from fifth stratum he would be set free. This also means that in practice and theory the crimes against untouchables were not judiciable and punishable. The witnesses were also allowed to give false witness in favor of Brahmanas. This made it possible to escape from judicial net in a judiciable accepted way.

A Brahman could lie in the court but not other Varnas. Thus, a Brahman could be a bonafide liar and the dharma was upheld. This also gave the scopes to Brahmans to falsely accuse other Varnas to settle the personal scores. Thus any mild anger of Brahmanas could have been a matter of grave concern to others especially Shudras and outcastes if they were the cause of it. These conditions provided the scope for avoiding the prosecution of any Brahman. The system was internally fixed. Of course they were the lawmakers.

The real burden of justice or injustice fell on the Shudras and the untouchables. The untouchables could not expect any justice from the state. The crimes against outcastes and untouchables were not judiciable, which is clear from the fact that they were not allowed to produce any witness from their side. Their life was full of injustice since birth for no fault of theirs. The only crime they committed was to be born in the fifth stratum; it was a kind of inherited crime; their forefathers had also done the same. For this they suffered from life punishment.For this crime their life itself was the punishment; it was not necessary for the king to punish them; any judicial punishment was in addition to their life punishment. How much one could punish a man? Of course one could do it if one was dharmic enough. And it was done in a slowly and crushing manner. Sometimes simply crushing. When it comes to untouchables the society takes the law into its own hand. The whole of the society becomes either law abiding or lawbreaking. It was law abiding since king could not reach all the villages. It was not necessary for the king to do so because the local Panchayats were strong enough to corporally punish the untouchables. It is dharmically sanctioned. The killers or beaters are actually doing the dharmic job of upholding dharma so they are not punishable...

Hindu justice -1

...The Hindu society is an ancient society; it has stood the test of time. Being an ancient society has endowed it with an ancient system of justice. The justice in a Varna based society is without saying is Varna based justice. One’s guilt was measured through his Varna. The crime in Hindu society can be broadly divided into two categories. One type of crime is related with general crime like stealing etc. And other kind of crime is crime against dharma. If any activity is against dharma; it becomes judiciable and punishable. It is evident in the functions of Kshatriyas, which are to protect people, rule the land and above all to uphold the dharma - divinely ordained, pious and pure dharma with all its elements of eternal cruelties. The Kshatriyas could not rule over the Brahmanas indicating existence of double power centers in the Hindu society. If the Brahmanas were above the political power then they were obviously above judicial system. The state power had been vested in Kshatriyas but they did not necessarily wield it. It was so because the king was supposed to rule the land according to dharma which could only be interpreted by the learned Brahmans. The Brahmanical interpretation of dharma, which followed from Shastras, was final. Thus, Kshatriyas and Brahmans combined together wielded the actual state power. In doing so the Brahmanas did not face a risk to life like Kshatriyas. The Brahmans were safe under the divine cover of dharma - divine protection for divine people. In addition, king was inferior to Brahman whom he was supposed to worship. This means that the Brahman was granted the status of god or demigod. A king was free to rule but he was not free to frame his law. He was dharma bound to favor the Brahmanas and heap cruelties after cruelties on Shudras and untouchables. The Brahmans were the real lawmakers and wielded indirect and unassailable power in the society – the swindlers. They were the real source of cruel exploitation of untouchables in the society. In it, others proudly helped them. Absolutely nobody had any problem in playing in their hands. It was a matter of others’ superior social status over the untouchables. The Brahmans were the real sovereigns. They framed the laws and others obeyed. The real sovereignty was vested in dharma from where it got transferred to the Brahmanas. To what an extent the Brahmans prevailed over Kshatriyas is evident from an incident from Ramayana. When Lord Rama, the God incarnate, returned home and took over the kingdom then he was required to undergo the coronation ceremony to be formally promulgated the king of Ayodhya. At that time, the Brahmans present refused Lord Rama coronation in his court. And Lord Rama could not do anything; the coercive powers vested in state were powerless. Suppressing the Brahmanas was prohibited because that would have destroyed the pure, pious and divine dharma and could have brought divine retribution. Moreover, a king could not destroy anything which was supposed to be the reason for his existence. A king could not rule over whom he was not supposed to rule. And he did not. He was refused coronation on the ground that he was guilty of killing a Brahman, Ravana the demon king of Lanka. And slaying a Brahman was the highest possible crime in a society based on Varna dharma. The king had the coercive power and the Brahman had the dharmic power. The dharmic powers were always superior to coercive powers. Thus Lord Rama was not eligible for the coronation. A mere king could not defy dharma. Facing this difficulty the courtiers of king Rama approached a group of Brahmans who agreed to perform the coronation for some consideration. They carried the coronation Lord Rama as king. As a result these Brahmans were degraded by other Brahmans from their status for coronating a Brahman slayer as king. Supposedly these Brahmans are known as Saryupani Brahmans and are considered as inferior Brahmans...