writers.[1] If the king did not care to maintain the privileges there was nothing to prevent him except the fear of hostility of the powerful classes. Under these conditions the dharma writers would exaggerate the claims, being sure that only part of their would be fulfilled. If detailed rules are given about anything, the principles at least would be considered by the king. The motive of the author was to create a feeling, mainly among the Brāhmanas, which would lead them to guard jealously their own interests. From the standpoint of equity these Brāhumana dharma writers have shown themselves worse than they really were. For these reasons, if there be any part which deserves our greatest suspicion regarding its validity it is the exposition of the privileges and disabilities of various varnas in the civil law, and of discriminations in the criminal law and especially that portion of the civil and criminal law where the author may be loud regarding the privileges of a Brāhmana. Unless what our writer says is corroborated by other evidence we cannot be sure that the social privileges and disabilities of various varnas were actually maintained as our text recommends.
First of all let us take stock of all the material at our disposal which may yield is some evidence to form an opinion as to whether the conditions were actually such
- ↑ In ancient India, the judge with the help of the assessors investigated the case, and informed the king of their result. and the king gave the punishment. Such was the procedure followed in the drama of "Toy-Cart" (Mrichchakatika) where Charudatta is tried. The judge informed the king that Charudatta was guilty of murder, but he being a Brāhmana is not, in accordance with Manu's injunction, fit to be killed. And in this special case the king refused to show mercy to Charudatta and sentenced him to death.
