Abstract
The ‘deontic orientation’ thesis—that is, the claim that ancient Indian legal theory is orientated or focussed towards duty to the exclusion of other jural operators—features prominently in the discourse of ancient Indian law. In contrast, contemporary legal systems tend to employ a variety of other jural operators also, including right, liberty, power, and so forth. Theorists like Wesley Hohfeld even assert that these operators are elemental, and hence not reducible to other operators. This disparity may be addressed from various evaluational and conceptual standpoints. I address instead a more basic question: is the disparity real? Does a scrutiny of legal treatises factually validate the deontic orientation thesis? I contend that the thesis is factually not sustainable, and that legal treatises of ancient India do display a sophisticated conception of non-deontic operators. To this end I undertake a scrutiny of Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, to determine the treatise’s use of non-deontic operators, and whether it treats them as entities in their own standing as opposed to derivatives or outcomes of the deontic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcock, Ashdown and Co. v. The Chief Revenue Authority (All India Reporter 1923 Privy Council 138).
Apte, V. S. (1959). Revised and enlarged edition of Prin. V. S. Apte’s The practical Sanskrit–English dictionary (Vol. III). Poona: Prasad Prakashan.
Austin, J. (1885). Lectures on jurisprudence (5th ed., Vol. I). London: John Murray.
Bamforth, N. (2001). Hohfeldian rights and public law. In M. H. Kramer (Ed.), Rights, wrongs and responsibilities (pp. 1–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Basu, A. (2001). Torts in India: Dharmic Resignation, colonial subjugation, or ‘underdevelopment’? South Atlantic Quarterly, 100(4), 1053–1070.
Beswick v Beswick (1968 Appeals Cases 58).
Bilimoria, P. (1993). Is Adhikāra good enough for ‘rights’? Asian Philosophy, 3(1), 3–13.
Davis, D. R., Jr. (2010). The spirit of Hindu law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derrett, J. D. M. (1953). Vyavahāra: Light on a vanished controversy from an unpublished fragment. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 15(3), 598–602.
Derrett, J. D. M. (1965). A newly-discovered contact between Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśastra: The role of Bhārucin. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 115(1), 134–152.
Derrett, J. D. M. (1973). Dharmaśāstra and juridical literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Derrett, J. D. M. (1977). The development of the concept of property in India c. A.D. 800–1800. In J. D. M. Derrett (Ed.), Essays in classical and modern Hindu law (Vol. II, pp. 8–130). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Dickey, A. (1971). Hohfeld’s Debt to Salmond. University of Western Australia Law Review, 10(1), 59–64.
Galanter, M. (1968). The displacement of traditional law in modern India. Journal of Social Issues, 24(4), 65–91.
Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2009). Black’s law dictionary (9th ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing.
Halpin, A. K. W. (1985). Hohfeld’s conceptions: From eight to two. Cambridge Law Journal, 44(3), 435–457.
Hansson, S. O. (1996). Legal relations and potestative rules. ARSP: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social), 82(2), 266–274.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1964). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning (revised ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jamieson, N. J. (1980). Status to contract. Refuted or refined. Cambridge Law Journal, 39(2), 333–359.
Junankar, N. S. (1982). The Mīmāṃsā concept of Dharma. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 10(1), 51–60.
Kane, P. V. (1930). History of Dharmasastra (Vol. I). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Kangle, R. P. (1969). The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra (Vols. I–III). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (second edition 1969, Reprinted from Animal sacrifice, 2014).
Kocourek, A. (1928). Jural relations (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.
Kramer, M. H., Simmonds, N. E., & Steiner, H. (1999). A debate over rights: Philosophical enquiries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lariviere, R. (1988). Adhikāra—Right and responsibility. In M. A. Jazayery & W. Winter (Eds.), Languages and cultures: Studies in honor of Edgar C. Polome (pp. 359–364). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lubin, T. (2017). The theory and practice of property in premodern South Asia: Disparities and convergences. SSRN. Accessed March 15, 2017, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2909048.
Maine, H. S. (1894). Ancient law (15th ed.). London: John Murray.
Martin, E. A. (Ed.). (2002). A dictionary of law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matilal, B. K. (2002). Dharma and Rationality. In J. Ganeri (Ed.), The collected essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal (Vol. II, pp. 49–71). New York: Springer.
McClish, M. (2009). Political Brahmanism and the state: A compositional history of the Arthaśāstra. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
McClish, M. (2012). Is the Arthaśāstra a Mauryan document? In P. Olivelle, J. Leoshko, & H. P. Ray (Eds.), Reimagining Aśoka: Memory and history (pp. 280–309). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
McClish, M. (2014). The dependence of Manu’s seventh chapter on Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 134(2), 241–262.
Monier-Williams, M. (1899). A Sanskrit–English dictionary (revised ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olivelle, P. (2004). Manu and the Arthaśāstra: A study in Śāstric intertextuality. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 32(2/3), 281–291.
Olivelle, P. (2013). King, governance, and law in ancient India: Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olivelle, P. (Ed.). (2015). A Sanskrit dictionary of law and statecraft. Delhi: Primus Books.
Olivelle, P., & McClish, M. (2015). The four feet of legal procedure and the origins of jurisprudence in ancient India. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 135(1), 33–47.
Peterson, I. K. (2006). When “May” means “Shall”: The case for mandatory liquidated damages under the Federal Wiretap Act. Stetson Law Review, 35(3), 1051–1087.
Salmond, J. W. (1902). Jurisprudence: Or the theory of the law. London: Stevens and Haynes.
Shamasastry, R. (Ed., Trans.). (1929). Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (3rd ed.). Mysore: Wesleyan Mission Press.
Skuy, D. (1998). Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code of 1862: The myth of the inherent superiority and modernity of the English legal system compared to India’s legal system in the nineteenth century. Modern Asian Studies, 32(3), 513–557.
Trautmann, T. R. (1971). Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A statistical investigation of the authorship and evolution of the text. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Tweddle v. Atkinson ((1861) 121 English Reports 762).
Williams, G. (1956). The concept of legal liberty. Columbia Law Review, 56(8), 1129–1150.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to Malabika Majumdar for her vital contributions. Thanks are also due to Satya Prakash Behera, Ananya Bharadwaj, Bishwa Kalyan Dash, and Ashirbani Dutta Dey. Sitharamam Kakarala’s comments and observations have been of much benefit.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Majumdar, A. Exploring the Non-Deontic in Ancient Indian Legal Theory: A Hohfeldian Reassessment of Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra . J Indian Philos 45, 513–538 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-017-9320-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-017-9320-8