Jain Journal 1973 10

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 31

JAIN JOURNAL
origin of punishment, that Jinasena reveals that inspite of his describing an idyllic state of nature, he was influenced by the earlier Indian concept relating to the mātsyanyāya which was a familiar simile with the ancient Hindu authors on Polity. Manu for instance, states thus : "If the king did not, without tiring, inflict. punishment on those worthy to be punished, the stronger would roast the weaker, like the fish on a spit20. Kautilya is even more explicit on this point. “For when the law of punishment is held in abeyance, it gives rise to such disorder as is implied in the proverb of the fishes ; for in the absence of a magistrate, the stronger will swallow the weak, but under his protection the weak will resist the strong”21. Jinasena, therefore, does not improve upon the earlier Indian authors in regard to the cause of the origin of punishment. He only differs from them in so far as the condition of society prior to the institution of punishment was concerned. Jinasena in this respect as will be explained below, differs from another illustrious Jaina thinker, Somadeva Suri.
Jinasena's ideas of government may now be briefly summarized. In his Adipurāņa he enumerates the king's obligations to his subjects, thus 22 : the obligation to preserve the kula (family) meaning there perhaps, as Professor Ghoshal rightly says, that the king had to preserve the family customs of his own and of other families 23. Then there was the obligation to divide society into two classes--those who should be protected, and those who were to be made to devote themseves to their respective professions. The second idea was obviously in accordance with the earlier Hindu idea of the king's duties as given, for instance, in the Manusmrti, thus : “The king has been created (to be) the protector of the castes and orders, who all according to their rank shall discharge their several duties”24. The next obligation of the king, according to Jinasena, was to follow the law (dharma) and lead others on the same path. The fourth obligation was to inflict punishment. Then came the king's obligation to preserve his subjects like a cowherd preserving his herd of cattle. In this connection, Jinasena elaborates his theory of danda, and says, among other things, that punish ment should not be severe but appropriate to the crime committed This was, by way, in accordance with the ancient Indian theory which
20 Manu, VII, 20, p. 219. 21 Kautilya, Arthasastra, Bk. I, ch. IV. 9, p. 8 (R. Shama Sastri's trans., 3rd. Ed.,
Mysore, 1929); text p. 9 (Ed. by R. Shama Sastri, Mysore, 1924.) Adipurana XLIII.
Ghoshal, op. cit. p. 464. 24 Manu, VII, 35, p. 221.
thin, text p.
24
Ghoshal