Dharmaśāstras: Repository of Timeless Wisdom
 | |
| Title | Dharmaśāstras: Repository of Timeless Wisdom |
|---|---|
| Author(s) | Raj Bijalwan |
| Platform | Bharatiya Jnana Sarita |
| Categories | Philosophy & Cognition/Ānvīkṣikī & Darśana |
| Year | 2026 |
| Type of Article | Repurposed Advanced |
| Difficulty Level | Advanced |
| +-Summary |
|---|
The tradition of Dharmaśāstra entails a framework that guides the society. With its timeless wisdom, the texts tend to offer… The tradition of Dharmaśāstra entails a framework that guides the society. With its timeless wisdom, the texts tend to offer guidance to people regarding marriage, religious and spiritual domains, etc. Dharmaśāstras carry the jñāna of the Vedas. Often, dharmaśāstras are confused with law. They are not synonymous with each other. This misconception emerged during the colonial era when the British 'experts' misinterpreted 'dharma' for 'law'. Dharmaśāstras are ever-evolving and not static. The British looked at dharma and the dharmaśāstras from the Western lens and destroyed a rich culture of Dharmaśāstras. All interpretation of the dharmaśāstras turned out to be an antithesis to the traditional dharmaśāstra outlook.
|
Introduction
Jñāna has a central and significant role in Bhāratīya civilization. Jñāna as knowledge or wisdom comprises several aspects related to the socio-economic, cultural, and historical domains of ancient Bhārata. The dharmaśāstras encapsulate within them the timeless wisdom of Bhāratīya civilization. The dharmaśāstras comprise information regarding marriages, economic conditions, religious and spiritual needs, social policy, and harmony. They have shaped policies and contracts to make significant contributions to the understanding of justice and righteousness.
Dharma, as a powerful force of consciousness, continues to guide contemporary Bhārata. Dharma, derived from the Saṃskṛta word ‘dhṛ’ which means to uphold or to sustain, represents that which sustains and maintains the cosmic order [1]. Thus, in Bhāratīya context dharma entails both law and religion, while being based on the cosmic order or ṛta. It is based on the eternal rules of the cosmic order and is often misconstrued to be authoritative in nature The Mahābhārata defines dharma in the following verse:
धारणाद्धर्ममित्याहुर्धर्मो धारयति प्रजाः ।
यः स्याद्धारणसंयुक्तः स धर्म इति निश्चयः ॥[2]
dhāraṇāddharmamityāhurdharmo dhārayati prajāḥ |
yaḥ syāddhāraṇasaṃyuktaḥ sa dharma iti niścayaḥ || [2]
इसे धर्म इसलिए कहते हैं क्योंकि यह धारण करता है, पालन करता है, और संरक्षण करता है। धर्म ही सभी प्राणियों का पालन करता है एवं संरक्षण देता है। जो यह धारण करने का गुण है, वही धर्म है।
They call it natural law (dharma) because of its characteristic of upholding or sustaining; it is by natural law (dharma) that beings are sustained. That which is imbued with the quality of upholding is, without doubt, that very natural law (dharma). [3]
Purpose and Scope
Dharmaśāstras form the core element of Bhāratīya civilisation. The article unravels the rich heritage of the dharmaśāstras that have guided Bhārata for a long time. Through the article, an attempt is made to explain the schools of dharmaśāstras while also clearing some misinterpretations about dharma. The article showcases the evolution of the dharmaśāstras along with the paramparā of paṇḍitas. The article notes how the colonialism destroyed an entire tradition as it traces the colonial actions that led to the destruction of this tradition.
For over a millennium, dharmaśāstras have shaped policies, socio-economic perspectives, and asserted nyāya and righteousness. The eternal wisdom and principles of Vedas, as ultimate source of dharma at the center of Bhāratīya civilisation, are the source of dharmaśāstras’ wisdom. The dharmaśāstras apply jñāna in the social domains and everyday life of people. Dharma is also derived from smṛti (purāṇas and dharmaśāstras), the sadācāra or customs, and ātmatuṣṭi (conduct as per one's conscience and satisfaction).
Without dharma, the cosmic and social order would fall into chaos. Dharma influences all domains of life, while also embodying the moral and natural order as well as leading individuals on the path to righteousness.
Literary Corpus of Dharmaśāstras
Dharmaśāstra literature comprises of dharmasūtras, the dharmaśāstras or smṛtis, the bhāṣyas, and the nibandhas. The dharmasūtras deal with the domestic, social, and religious lives while also including rules of conduct of the common people, including the king [4]. The dharmaśāstras are a corpus of texts that entail code of conduct for the people and the society as a whole. The smṛti encompasses jñāna contained in the Vedas [5]. Similarly, the bhāṣyas are commentaries with elaborate meaning and information. The nibandhas include digests especially pertaining to legal or judicial works. The dharmaśāstra literature includes a vast range of texts that were produced over centuries across Bhārata, a tradition that continued through the scholars.
While the origin of the dharmaśāstras lack historical account, it is often accepted that the earliest and the most influential metrical smṛti text is the Mānavadharmaśāstra or the Manusmṛti. There are other dharmaśāstras such as Yājñavalkyasmṛti, Nāradasmṛti, Viṣṇusmṛti, Kātyāyanasmṛti, Parāśarasmṛti, and Bṛhaspatismṛti that were composed over centuries. The Dharmaśāstra tradition has two broad schools of thought: the Mitākṣarā and the Dāyabhāga. In Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, and the southern part of Bhārata, the Mitākṣarā tradition is followed, while Dāyabhāga was followed predominantly in Bengal. The two schools aim to set principles regarding property, inherits, marriage, succession, and other legal categories.
Dharma as Law
There is no Saṃskṛta equivalent for the term ‘law.’ Dharma and law cannot be used interchangeably. The common notion of misconstruing dharma for law was a British construct, and the misrepresentation continues to persist even today. The British looked at Bhārata and its civilization from the Western lens and distorted the meaning of dharma as law rooted in religion.
The treaties on vyavahāra addresses the resolution of disputes as per the principles of the scriptures or as customary practices, suggesting that śāstra procedures were not laws. Several commentaries use litigation or justice for vyavahāra, when pointing at the legal elements of the dharmaśāstras. Traditionally, disputes were resolved through the intervention of the king or the prādviveka (the arbitrator). These resolutions were not based on a preset list of laws, further proving that śāstra notions were never considered as binding as law. The British misunderstood the term dharma to create a rigid set of laws that defied indigenous customs or norms. Commentators highlight in their notings how there was no such thing as ‘Hindu Law’ until the British invented it.
Prior to the arrival of the colonialists, dharmaśāstra tradition evolved as one pertaining to the philosophical domain of intellect and jñāna. The tradition survived, evolved, and flourished with the changes in society due to its flexibility and adaptability, among other reasons. Tradition assigned the primary role to the paṇḍitas who interpreted the dharmaśāstras in order to accommodate the changing socio-cultural scenario. This allowed the dharmaśāstras to survive and endure changing times and social understanding. Secondly, the nibandhakāras, having autonomy, transmitted jñāna through the gurukula system. Numerous gurukulas were established across Bhārata to transmit jñāna of the various branches of dharmaśāstra. These included the institutions run by the paṇḍitas or scholars, commonly called the tolas or catuṣpāṭhīs. Thirdly, the kings appointed paṇḍitas as their advisors so that they could refer to the śāstraa texts for vindications or dismissal of the applicability of a rule.
After the Britishers established colonial rule in Bhārata, a sharp decline of this tradition was witnessed. The Britishers appointed the paṇḍitas and translators for codification but they did not employ pre-colonial methodologies to ensure that the wisdom of dharmaśāstras was applied correctly to the Bhāratīya society. The use of philosophy and the logic of nyāya and mīmāṃsā was not possible in the British-translated version of dharmaśāstra. Paṇḍitas were appointed to interpret śāstra laws for namesake only. They didn't have the liberty to exert any opinion on the judgements, as was the indigenous custom. The British considered paṇḍitas as an impediment in their judicial machinery. They believed that the paṇḍitas cherry picked the texts to influence a judgement and to endorse their own opinion using dharmaśāstras.
Thus, the colonial administration did make efforts to translate and codify the Saṃskṛta texts so that “Hindu Law” was accessible to the British judges, who applied the rules without full contextual understanding of their applicability. With the Act XI of 1864 brought by the British, the paṇḍitas and the scholars lost their occupation and ability to guide societal conduct. Thereby, leading a decline in the urge to study, to philosophise, and to interpret dharmaśāstras texts among paṇḍitas and scholars.
Evolution of Dharmaśāstras
Dharmaśāstras, by nature, were designed to evolve with time. Without catering to the changing socio-cultural needs, dharmaśāstras lose their aim of being the source of knowledge in action. As guidelines and as reflection of the society, dharmaśāstra texts emphasise on ethics for the society. Despite this dynamic nature of the dharmaśāstra tradition, the tradition's decline was largely due to the British misunderstanding the word dharma while they attempted to codify the texts into Hindu law.
Sanātana Dharma does not have a centralised legal authority for law enforcement. The texts were interpreted and validated by experts to make informed decisions. As far as interpretation of law was concerned, the commentators and the nibandhakāras held significant authority. As the dharmaśāstra tradition was a dynamic one, the evolution of rules for society was an obvious consequence. The commentators used nyāya and mīmāṃsā to resolve contradictions and presented interpretations to suit changing social contexts. The nibandhakāras worked to organise, classify, and state the rules of dharma. This tradition's evolution along with society showcased the existence of intellectual tradition.
The attempt of the colonialists to interfere in the traditions of Bhārata is evident from the way the Dharmaśāstra tradition was crippled after their arrival. Under the garb of restructuring the Hindu Legal System, the British constructed a misguided concept of Hindu Law. The organic and flexible legal tradition was crushed and replaced by a codified adversarial jurisprudence. The disruption brought forth selective aspects from the dharmaśāstras and created the Anglo-Hindu Law [1].
Indian participation in the restructuring was negligible as the tradition no longer held significance in the British purview. Their versions of the dharmaśāstras did no justice to the texts or the meanings of the words written in them. They used British legal terms to understand concepts of dharma and to settle disputes. The British translators and the interpreters took it as a moment of pride for having codified the dharmaśāstra texts and continued the legacy. However, they failed to use the logic of nyāya and mīmāṃsā. The indigenous tradition of Bhārata was carried forth merely as namesake. The resultant textual interpretations were a complete opposite to the nuanced tradition of dharmaśāstras and their application for the betterment of society. The traditional methods of understanding Bhāratīya society were absent in all forms, and the lack of contextual interpretations was visible. Distant from the indigenous conventions and traditions, the British understanding of the Bhāratīya civilisation, of its traditions, of dharmaśāstras was far removed from reality; leading to the extinction of the practice.
Conclusion
The tradition of dharmaśāstra was dynamic and evolving in nature. The paṇḍitas compiled what they saw and commented as per the era and region. The British attempted to exploit every single resource, even our traditions, to control and subjugate the indigenous masses. The elimination of the dharmaśāstra tradition was largely due to their misconception of dharma and related texts. The translations lacked meaning and structure; thus, they did not reflect the law and Bhāratīya society. The British did lip-service regarding continuity of local tradition, but their action created results that were a complete antithesis to the tradition of dharmaśāstra and its interaction with the Bhāratīya society.
References:
Aditi, A. A. (2025). Evolution of Indian Legal Concepts: Dhaarmashastra to Indian Constitution.. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, V(III), 818. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/EVOLUTION-OF-INDIAN-LEGAL-CONCEPTS-DHARMASHASTRA-TO-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION.pdf
Wisdom Library. (n.d.). Mahabharata Chapter 101 [Sanskrit text]. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mahabharata-sanskrit/d/doc1010488.html
Mahābhārataḥ - Book 12, Chapter 110, Verse 11 | Sanskrit text in Devanagari and IAST transliteration. (n.d.). https://enjoylearningsanskrit.com/scriptures/mahabharata/book-12/chapter-110/verse-11/
Dharmasutras A Study in their Origin and development Suresh Chandra Banerji : Tara Gulati : Free download, Borrow, and streaming : Internet Archive. (2020, March 22). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/dharmasutrasastudyintheiroriginanddevelopmentsureshchandrabanerji_202003_632_r/page/n13/mode/2up
www.wisdomlib.org. (2025c, May 8). Dharmashastra, Dharma-shastra, Dharmaśāstra, Dharmaśāstrā: 20 definitions. https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/dharmashastra
Original Article Information
- Original Article Link: https://www.brhat.in/dhiti/pre-colonial-history-of-the-dharmashastras
- Original Article Details: The article is Part 2 of a series on codification of law, which explores the pre-colonial history of the Dharmasāśtra tradition in an effort to highlight the appalling state of dormancy despite their contemporary relevance.