Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:05:58.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rājadharma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

J. Duncan M. Derrett
Get access

Extract

Louis Dumont has the unique advantage of combining field experience, large ideas, and a basic knowledge of Sanskrit. The patience to master a difficult archaic language, no longer the spoken vehicle of current thoughts in any defined society, is very rare in a scholar devoted to analysis of actual social groups, real people. Dumont is the only person to acquaint himself with traditional societies in India and with the cultural continuity within which they, and their neighbors, are intelligible as a unit. The large and daunting literate past of India is open to him; and there are few who can compete with this combination of skills. Nevertheless his study of the relationship between king and brahmin in traditional and (so far as is relevant) modern Indian society—a study found principally in one essay—impressed me in two ways, which, in association, did not sustain admiration. His ideas need to be placed alongside another interpretation of the facts, in order that a clearer perspective may be obtained. It is not the case that his reading of archaic and ambiguous materials is wrong; we do not yet know enough about the history of India to say that. But there is a real chance that the talent to generalize from the particular (which is one of the strengths of anthropologists) has here run a little ahead of itself. My aim is not to discourage the use of Sanskritic materials, still less to imply that there are “real experts” in competition with whom the anthropologist who emulates Dumont's efforts must remain silent. I value the stimulus Dumont's ideas have offered; and I know they will continue to excite response and encourage further research, even when they arouse suspicion. Let us attempt a new evaluation of the facts, and set that beside Dumont's findings.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 1976 , pp. 597 - 609
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Basu, A. (1959). ”Hindu Doctrine of Divine Kingship,” in The Sacral Kingship (Leiden: Brill).Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, B. (1936). “Royal Prerogative in Ancient India,” Krishnaswami Aiyangar Commemoration Volume (Madras), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Derrett, J. D. M. (1958). “The Maintenance of Peace in the Hindu World: Practice and Theory”, Indian Year Book of International Affairs 1958 (p. 27), also in La Paix. Recueils de la Societejean Bodin, 14, pp. 143 ff.Google Scholar
(1959). “Bhū-bharana, bhū-palana, bhū-bhojana: An Indian Conundrum,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies, 22/1, pp. 108–23.Google Scholar
(1969). “Rulers and Ruled in India,” in Gouvernes et Gouvernants. Recueils de la Societejean Bodin, 22, pp. 417–45.Google Scholar
(1973). “Hindu Empires,” in Les Grands Empires. Recueils de la Societejean Bodin, 31, pp. 565–96.Google Scholar
(1975). ”Social and Political Thought and Institutions,” in Basham, A. L. (ed.), A Cultural History of India (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Drekmeier, C. (1962). Kingship and Community in Early India (Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press), esp. pp. 56–62, and pts. 3–4.Google Scholar
Dumont, L. (1967). ”Caste: A Phenomenon of Social Structure or an Aspect of Indian Culture?” in de Reuck, A.V.S. and Knight, J. (eds.), Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches (London: J. & A. Churchill).Google Scholar
Filliozat, J. (1961). ”Les Divisions sociales de l'lnde,” in Olivier, G. (ed.), Anthropologie des Tamouls du sud de l'lnde (Publications hors-serie de l'ficole Franchise d'Extreme-Orient), pp. i-xxix.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, U. N. (1959). History of Indian Political Ideas (Bombay: Oxford Univ. Press), ch. 30; general summary and conclusion are helpful.Google Scholar
Gonda, J. (1956–57). “Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View,” Numen, 3: pp. 36–37, 122–55; 4: pp. 24–58, 127–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesterman, J. C. (1957). The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration (The Hague: Mouton).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1959). ”Reflections on the Significance of the Daksinā,” Indo-Iranian Journal, 3/4, pp. 241–58.Google Scholar
(1962). “Vrātya and Sacrifice,” Indo-Iranian Journal, 6/1, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
(1963). ”Tradition in Modern India,” Bijdragen totdetaal-, land- en volkenkunde, 119/3, pp. 237–53.Google Scholar
(1964). “Brahmin, Ritual and Renouncer,” Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Su'd- und Ostasiens, 8, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
(1968). ”The Return of the Vedic Scholar,” in Pratiddnam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to F.B.J. Kuiper (The Hague: Mouton).Google Scholar
Kamala, Krjna Smrtitīrtha, Mahāmahopādhyāya. (1935). Introduction to Anantadeva,Rājadharma-kaustubha (Baroda: Oriental Institute, Gaekwad's Oriental Series 72).Google Scholar
Kane, P. V. (1941). History of Dharmasastra II/I (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).Google Scholar
(1946). History of Dharmasastra III (Poona: B.O.R.I.).Google Scholar
Kangle, R. P. (1960–65). The Kaufilfya Arthasdstra, pts. I—III (Bombay: The University).Google Scholar
Kulke, H. (1974). “Kings without a Kingdom: The Rajas of Khurda and thejagannatha Cult,” South Asia, 4, pp. 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingat, R. (1973). The Classical Law of India (trans. Derrett) (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press), esp. pt. 2, ch. 3.Google Scholar
Losch, H. (1959). Rdjadharma. Einsetzung und Aufgabenkreis des Kb'nigs im Lichte des Purdna's (Bonn: Orientalisches Seminar der Universitat), esp. pt. A.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. J. (1937). Bali. Trilogie altindischer Ma'chte. und Feste der Vegetation (Zürich and Leipzig).Google Scholar
Motwani, K. (1958). Nianu Dharma Sdstra (Madras: Ganesh & Co.), esp. pt. I, ch. 7.Google Scholar
Orenstein, H. (1965). “The Structure of Hindu Caste Values: A Preliminary Study of Hierarchy and Ritual Defilement,” Ethnology, 4/1, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RangaswamiAiyangar, K. V. Aiyangar, K. V. (1934). Aspects of Ancient Indian Economic Thought (Benares: B.H.U.), esp. ch. 2.Google Scholar
(1941). Rdjadharma (Adyar: Theosophical Society).Google Scholar
(1949a). Aspects of the Social and Political System of Manusmrti (Lucknow University), ch. 6.Google Scholar
(1949b). Indian Cameralism (Adyar: Theosophical Society), esp. ch. 2, and pp. 76–83, 93–102, and chs. 5–6.Google Scholar
(1952). Some Aspects of the Hindu View of Life according to the Dharmasastra (Baroda: Oriental Institute), esp. ch. 4.Google Scholar
Rocher, L. (1970). “A Few Considerations on Monocracy in Ancient India,” Recueils de la SocieteJean Bodin, 20, pp. 639–75.Google Scholar
Ruben, W. (1967). Die Entwicklung der Produktionsverhaltnissen im Alten Indien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), pp. 37–44.Google Scholar
(1968). Die Entwicklung von Staat und Recht im Alten Indien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), esp. ch. 1.Google Scholar
Sen-Gupta, N. C. (1953). Evolution of Ancient Indian Law (London: Probsthain; and Calcutta: Eastern Law House), ch. 2.Google Scholar
Schlerath, B. (1960). Das Konigtum im Rig- und Atharvaveda (Wiesbaden: Steiner), esp. §§ 6–9.Google Scholar
Sharma, R. S. (1954). “Superstition and Politics in the Arthasastra of Kautilya,” Journal of the Bihar Research Society, 40/3, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
(1959). Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass), esp. chs. 2, 4, 5–9, 11—14.Google Scholar
Singh, Bhawani. (1967). “Divinity of the Ancient Indian King,” Modern Review, 122, pp. 104–16.Google Scholar
Spellman, J. W. (1964). Political Theory of Ancient India (Oxford: Clarendon Press), esp. chs. 2, 4–5, 8–9.Google Scholar
Sternbach, L. (1963). Cānakya-rāja-nāti (Adyar: Adyar Library), pp. 24–40.Google Scholar