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...