Chapter XXIII. Vakpārushya and Dandapārushya (Abuse and defamation; assault)

Volume III pp. 511–518

Chapter XXIII. Vakpārushya and Dandapārushya (Abuse and defamation; assault)

(Abuse and defamation; assault)

Vākpāruṣya, daṇḍapāruṣya, steya, strīsaṅgrahaṇa, sāhasa are five titles out of 18 that are concerned with what may be called criminal matters or crimes in modern nomenclature. Vide under sāhasa below.

Nār. XVIII. 1 defines vākpāruṣya as ‘abusive words that loudly proclaim censure of another’s country, caste, family and the like and that cause mental pain or offence to that maṇ' Kāt. (768) defines it as ¹ consisting in making the sound ‘hum’ (of defiance) before another or coughing before him, of imitating or uttering before another whatever is censurable according to popular notionṣ Nār. (XVIII. 2–3) says that abuse is of three kinds, mīdhura (reproachful such as calling a man a fool or a rogue), aślīla (obscene or insulting), tīvra (mercilessly severe such as charging a man with such grave sins as brāhmaṇa-murder or drinking liquor) and that the punishment for each later one is more severe than for each preceding one. Examples of the abuse of country, caste and family are respectively ‘the Gauḍas are quarrelsome’, ‘brāhmaṇas are extremely greedy’, ‘persons of the Viśvāmitra gotra commit cruel deeds’. Br. (S. B. E. vol, 33 p. 355 verses 2–4) divided vākpāruṣya into three kinds viz. lowest (when the country, caste or family of a person is abused or sinfulness is ascribed without specifying any definite act), middling (speaking that the abuser will have sexual inter-course with the mother or sister of the abused or ascribing the commission of upapātakas ² or minor sins to the abused), highest (charging him with taking forbidden food or drink or mercilessly exposing or ascribing the grave sins to a person). Various fines are prescribed in the smṛtis that depend upon the above distinctions and also on the castes of the abuser and the abuseḍ For example, Manu VIII. 267 (=Nār. XVIII. 15=Matsya. 227. 66) prescribes the punishments of 100 panas, 150 or 200 panas, corporal punishment respectively against a kṣatriya or a vaiśya or a śūdra abusing a brāhmaṇa and conversely Manu VIII 268 (= Nār. XVIII. 16) provides that a brāhmaṇa calum- niating a kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra should respectively be fined 50, 25 or 12 panaṣ In the case of the abuser and the abused being of the same varṇa the fine for ordinary abuse is 12 panas, but double of this if the abuse is, according to Manu VIII. 269 (= Nār. XVIII. 17), foul (relating to mother, sister &c. ). Vide Yāj. II. 206-207, Viṣṇudharmasūtra V. 35. From the remarks of the Sṃ C. and the Madanaratna it appears that these discriminating provisions³ based on the caste⁴ and the ascription of minor or grave sins had become a dead letter and were not being enforced by the kings in India by the 12th century A. D. at least. One or two matters, however, may be noteḍ Manu VIII. 268-272 and 274 are the same as Nār. XVIII. 16-17, 22-24 Even the truth of an imputation⁵ afforded no complete exemption e. g. if a person angrily calls a man a thief (who was once convicted of it) or speaks of him as blind or cripple, the former would be fined at least one kārṣāpaṇa (Manu VIII. 274= Nār. XVIII. 18). Kaut. (III 18) provides in this case three panas⁶ as fine and Viṣṇudharmasūtra (V. 27) two panaṣ imputation is false all provide for a fine double of that pro- vided in case the imputation is true. Ironic praise of a man (such as describing one who is blind of one eye as one endowed with a beautiful eye) is made punishable by Kaut. (III. 18). To warn⁷ a man against associating with a person who is guilty of a grave sin or of theft does not entail punishment if the truth of the imputation be established (Kāt. 776). Acc to Kaut and Kāt (775) the king was to award only half the fine prescribed in the accused said ‘what I uttered in abuse was done through ignorance, carelessness, rivalry or friendship; I shall not again do so’⁸. A person who abuses a king doing his duty was to have his tongue cut off or forfeited all his property (Nār XVIII. 30, Yāj. II. 302). Āp. II. 10. 27. 14 prescribed for a śūdra that abused any one of the three higher castes leading a religious life the punishment of the cutting of the tongue⁹.

Dandapārusya (assault). Kaut III. 19 begins his treatment of this topic by saying that it comprises touching, threatening to strike and actually striking another¹⁰. Nār. XVIII. 4 defines it as injuring the limbs of another with the hand, foot, weapon or other means (such as stones) or defiling or causing pain by (bringing) ashes and similar substances in contact with another. The Mit. on Yāj II. 213 explains that even causing injury to animals and trees would fall under this title Nār XVIII. 5–6 provide that assault may be of three kinds viz. mild, middling and highly punishable according as a person merely makes preparations to assault or attacks without any qualm or causes a wound and that this crime can further be divided into three kinds according as the object attacked is low in value or middling or high A verse from the Pariśiṣṭa (quoted by Sṃ C. II. p. 327 and V. P. p. 370) states ‘whoever causes pain or draws blood, wounds, breaks, cuts off, pierces (the limbs or bodies) of living beings is guilty of dandapārusya’ According to Br. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p 357 verse 1) damṣupāruṣya¹¹ consists in striking (a person) with the hand, with a stone, a club, ashes, mud, dust or a weapoṇ The Mit. on Yaj. II. 212 following Nār. XVIII. 7-12 lays down certain propositions about both abuse and assault. A person who does not return abuse or does not assault when abused or assaulted, deserves to be commended, if he returns the abuse or assaults in return, the person who began the quarrel is to be dealt with more severely than the other. When two persons¹² attack each other and there are no means for finding who began the quarrel equal punishment is to be awarded to both, but when two quarrel he who began the quarrel or he who persists longer than the other is to be fined more than the other party and lastly in men of the lowest¹³ castes such as śvapāka, mleccha, cāṇḍāla, hunters, elephant riders, vrātyas and dāsas (slaves) assault respectable men and ācāryas then they are to be punished (whipped) by good men then and there, but if such punishment is not possible, then the king should award corporal punishment (of various kinds according to the nature of the crime) and should not take fines from them, since they are the foulest among men and their wealth also is foul. Kāt. (783) and Br. (S. B. II. 33 p. 359 verse 15) are to the same effect. The several smṛtis lay down various punishments for various kinds of assaults but no useful purpose will be served by going into detailṣ Kāt.¹⁴ (786) provides that just as in abuse punishments depend on the castes of the abuser and the abused so also in assaults higher punishment is to be awarded if the attacker is of a lower caste than the person attacked or lower punishment if the person attacked is of a lower caste. Manu VIII. 286 and Uśanas¹⁵ lay down that the punishment for the offence should be commensurate with the pain or injury caused by the offender to a man or beast. A few examples may be set out. Probably the oldest reference to fines for assault in Sanskrit literature is contained in the Taittirīya saṃhitā ¹⁶ II 6 10. 2. ' He who threatens to strike a brāhmaṇa shall be fined with a hundred (cows or nishkas ?), he who strikes a brāhmaṇa shall be fined with a thousand , he who draws blood from him shall not behold the pītrs for as many years as there are particles of dust mixed with the blood that falls on them '. This passage is interpreted in Jai III ¹⁷ 4 17 as being a recommendatory injunction (purusārthat) to all at all times to desist from assaulting a brāhmaṇa. Gaut (21 20-22) and Manu XI. 206-207 appear to take the Tai. S passage differently and refer the figures of 100 and 1000 to years Kaut III 19 prescribes various fines for various kinds of assaults Br (S.B.E 33 p 357 verses 2, 3 and 7) says that if a person throws ashes or the like at another or beats him with the hand the fine should be one māsa, but it he strikes with a brick, stone or stick the fine should be two māsakas; this however applies when both are of the same caste, but if he assaults a woman who is another's wife or a person of a higher caste, the fine may be higher and higher For one who bruises the skin of another or draws blood by assault the fine is one hundred panas, and for him who causes a wound by removing some flesh the fine is six māsakas and he who causes breaking of bones should be banished (Manu VIII 284 = Nār XVIII 29) Kāt prescribes the highest amerce- ment for cutting off the ear, the lip, the nose, the foot, the eye, the tongue, the penis, the hand, and the middle amerce- ment for causing injury (or wounding) Gaut XII 1, Kaut III 19, Manu VIII ¹⁸ 279, Yāj II. 215, Br provide the punishment of the cutting of that limb with which a śūdra strikes a person of the three higher castes And the Mī on Yāj II 215 applies by analogy the same rule to a vaiśya striking a kṣatriya Manu VIII. 280 extends the same puni-hment to a śūdra for merely raising the hand or a club to strike one of a higher caste. Manu VIII 281-283 (=Nār. XVIII 26-28) provide that a person of a low caste defiantly sitting on the same seat with one of a higher caste was to be first branded on the waist and then banished or his hips were to be gashed (in such a way that he might not die), that a śūdra defiantly spitting on the body of a brāhmaṇa had his lips cut off or a śūdra voiding urine or fæces on a brāhmaṇa had those offending limbs cut off, or a śūdra defiantly seizing a brāhmaṇa by the hair or the feet or beard or neck or testicles would have both his hands cut off. If several conspire and strike a person who is alone, each one was to be sentenced to twice the punishment prescribed for the offence (Yāj II. 221, Kaut¹⁹ III 19, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V 73). Kaut. III. 19, Manu VIII 287, Yāj II. 222, Br., Kat 787, Viṣṇu Dh S. V. 75-76 provide that the king should make an offender pay a fine and also the expenses of medical treatment and diet till the wound is healed up and the person attacked is able to do his usual work (vide note 613 above). For mischief to property²⁰ and for killing or maiming animals, Kaut., Manu, Yājñavalkya and others provide various fineṣ For example, Kaut. III. 19 prescribes that when property of small value is destroyed by a man he should be punished with fine equal to the value of the article and should be made to restore the article or its value to the owner; but in the case of articles of substantial value the fine is double of the value. Manu VIII 288 is of similar import. Yāj II. 223 provides varying fines if a person wrongfully causes damage to a wall by knocking it (with a club), or pierces it or divides it into two or demolishes it and makes the offender pay to the owner the cost of restoring it. Manu. VIII. 296-298, Yāj II 225-226 prescribe fines for causing death or injury to animals of small value (such as goats) and big animals like elephants, horses and cowṣ Yāj II 227-229, Kaut III 19, and Kāt 793 provide fines for causing loss by injuring or felling trees, shrubs and creeperṣ Yāj II. 214 holds²¹ that if a person throws mud, dust or saliva or filthy things on another or strikes with his feet, he should not be fined if he is under the influence of intoxicants at the time or is not in his right mind or does it through mistake, while Kaut. III 19 prescribes half of the usual fine in such caseṣ

An important question is how far the right of private defence of person or property was recognised by the dharma-śāstra workṣ This subject has partly been dealt with in H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 148-151 in connection with an ātatāyin (a desperate man) who is an incendiary or a poisoner or is armed with a weapon, is a robber, one carrying away another’s wife or seizing by force (a field). Although there is great diversity of views about killing a brāhmaṇa ātatāyin, there is no difference of opinion as to repelling with force culminating even in death an ātatāyin of any other caste. Gaut. VII. 25 allows even a brāhmaṇa to arm himself when his life is in danger.²² Bauḍ Dh. S. II.²³ 2. 80, Manu VIII. 348-349 lay down that brāhmaṇas and vaiśyas may oppose with force when they are prevented from doing their religious duties by felons or when there are disturbances caused by invasion or the like, for saving their own lives, for preventing the seizure of their cows or other wealth or for protecting women or brāhmaṇaṣ The Mit.²⁴ on Yāj. II. 286 remarks that these rules of Manu are applicable when there is no time to report to the king or when delay in opposing violence will mean loss or ruiṇ According to Kāt.²⁵ (800) no blame attaches to a man who kills wicked men that are about to kill another, but when they have desisted from their attempt, they should be arrested and not killeḍ Aparārka (on Yāj. III. 227) remarks that persons are to be regarded as ātatāyin while they are about to set fire or to kill or they are in the act of setting fire or killing and the like, that where it is not possible to prevent them from doing what they intend to do except by killing them there only the texts allow killing; but that where it is possible to prevent them by merely wounding them with a weapon or stick, killing them would be an offence ⁹¹⁷ Medhātithi ^917a on Manu VIII 348 differs from this and allows the killing of a desperado even after he has carried out his purpose and not only when he is about to carry it out or is in the act of carrying it out. The view of the Mit. on Yaj. II 21 is that one has a right to oppose and kill another in self-defence, in defence of women and other weak people, who cannot defend themselves against a murderous or violent attack and that even if a wrongdoer of the brāhmaṇa caste was killed in the exercise of such right there is no punish- ment at the hands of the king and the prāyaścitta (for killing a brāhmaṇa) is a light one. Similarly a man can kill with impunity animals having claws, horns or fangs or horses or elephants if they attack a person (Kāt. 805 q by Sṃ C. II. p 316)