________________
MAY, 1917]
Sentiment must be outlawed from the domain of science and things should be judged from an objective standpoint. For myself I shall find as much pleasure in a positive destruction of my own idealogy, as in a rational disagreement on a topic, which, notwithstanding many learned disquisitions is likely to remain controversial for ever. To conclude, while I am ambitious to advance a.Theory of Caste, if it can be shown to be untenable I shall be equally willing to give it up.
SOME REMARKS SUPPLEMENTING THE MANUSMRITI
95
SOME REMARKS SUPPLEMENTING "THE MANUSMRITI IN THE LIGHT OF SOME RECENTLY PUBLISHED TEXTS"1.
BY HIRALAL AMRITLAL SHAH, Esq., BOMBAY.
In the Mahabharata, (Bombay University ed. 1914), Dronap VII. 1 (p. 283), Dronacharya speaks of his qualifications as a general before the Kauravas gathered together to elect a generalissimo in the place of Bhishma. He tells us:
'वेदं षडङ्ग वेदाहमर्थविद्यां च मानवीम्
त्रयम्बकमयेष्वस्त्रं श(भ) स्त्राणि विविधानि च ॥ "
"I know the Vedas with their six branches (of sciences), the Arthavidya of Manu, the science of discharging the arrows presided over by Siva, and various other sastras (weapons)." This passage of the Mahabharata may help us in concluding that there must be, or, at least, have been, a great book on politics and military affairs composed by Manu. It may form an independent treatise, or it may form a large section in the Mânavadharmasastra. In the Arthasdstra of Kautilya (Mysore, Bibliotheca Sanskrita No. 37), we find in its latter portion, consisting of about two hundred pages, Chanakya's thoughts on, and the rules worked out for, military purposes. When we compare the portion of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya with what is said in the Manusmriti, ch. VII, we discover a vast difference between the two. The Manusmriti enunciates only general principles of warfare. We cannot think that the study of these verses of the seventh chapter will ever qualify a man for the command of a big army, or entitle him to boast of his proficiency in military matters. Hence, we think, that the "Mânavê Arthavidya" must be on a scale similar to that of the Arthasâstra of Kautilya and, that Manusmriti VII is an abridgment of the rules therein.
Perhaps some may take the term "sruffaria" in other senses than we have taken it. It might be translated as the "Arthavidya of human beings." There is no particular reason to prefer this translation, because Drogâchârya has not spoken of any science or vidya belonging to some other (say, heavenly) beings.
Believing then that the Arthasdstra of Manu is referred to by Dronacharya, we would point out here one or two confirmations of this conclusion.
Some of the quotations, standing against the name of the followers of Manu ("fa ") in the Arthasâstra of Kautilya, cannot be traced to the present Manusmriti. May it not be that they are to be found in the Dharmaidstra (or perhaps in the Dharmasútras) of Manu which yet lies somewhere hidden away unprinted? Narada and Brihaspati claim allegiance to Manu. They differ much from the Manusmriti. Hence it may be that the source of some of their rules may prove to be the Dharmasastra of Manu, which may include also the Arthavidya, proudly mentioned by Dronacharya before the Kaurava warriors.
Ante, Vol. XLV., pp. 112-115; 125-129.
