Hindu law, as a historical term, refers to the code of laws applied to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in British India. Hindu law, in modern scholarship, also refers to the legal theory, jurisprudence and philosophical reflections on the nature of law discovered in ancient and medieval era Indian texts. It is one of the oldest known jurisprudence theories in the world.
Hindu tradition, in its surviving ancient texts, does not universally express the law in the canonical sense of ius or of lex. The ancient term in Indian texts is Dharma, which means more than a code of law, though collections of legal maxims were compiled into works such as the Nāradasmṛti. The term "Hindu law" is a colonial construction, and emerged after the colonial rule arrived in South Asia, and when in 1772 it was decided by British colonial officials, that European common law system would not be implemented in India, that Hindus of India would be ruled under their "Hindu law" and Muslims of India would be ruled under "Muslim law" (Sharia).
The substance of Hindu law implemented by the British was derived from a Dharmaśāstra named Manusmriti, one of the many treatises (śāstra) on Dharma. The British, however, mistook the Dharmaśāstra as codes of law and failed to recognise that these Sanskrit texts were not used as statements of positive law until the British colonial officials chose to do so. Rather, Dharmaśāstra contained jurisprudence commentary, i.e., a theoretical reflection upon practical law, but not a statement of the law of the land as such. Scholars have also questioned the authenticity and the corruption in the Manusmriti manuscript used to derive the colonial era Hindu law.
In colonial history context, the construction and implementation of Hindu law and Islamic law was an attempt at "legal pluralism" during the British colonial era, where people in the same region were subjected to different civil and criminal laws based on the religion of the plaintiff and defendant. Legal scholars state that this divided the Indian society, and that Indian law and politics have ever since vacillated between "legal pluralism - the notion that religion is the basic unit of society and different religions must have different legal rights and obligations" and "legal universalism – the notion that individuals are the basic unit of society and all citizens must have uniform legal rights and obligations".
Terminology and nomenclature
In Hinduism, law is discussed as a subset of dharma which signifies behaviors that are considered in accord with rta, the order that makes life and the universe possible,[note 1] and includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and ‘‘right way of living’’. The concept of Dharma includes Hindu law.
In ancient texts of Hinduism, the concept of dharma incorporates the principles of law, order, harmony, and truth. It is explained as the necessary law of life and equated to satya (Sanskrit: सत्यं, truth), in hymn 1.4.14 of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, as follows:
धर्मः तस्माद्धर्मात् परं नास्त्य् अथो अबलीयान् बलीयाँसमाशँसते धर्मेण यथा राज्ञैवम् ।
यो वै स धर्मः सत्यं वै तत् तस्मात्सत्यं वदन्तमाहुर् धर्मं वदतीति धर्मं वा वदन्तँ सत्यं वदतीत्य् एतद्ध्येवैतदुभयं भवति ।।
Nothing is higher than Dharma. The weak overcomes the stronger by Dharma, as over a king. Truly that Dharma is the Truth (Satya); Therefore, when a man speaks the Truth, they say, "He speaks the Dharma"; and if he speaks Dharma, they say, "He speaks the Truth!" For both are one.
In ancient Hindu jurisprudence texts, a number of Sanskrit words refer to aspects of law. Some of these include Niyama (Sanskrit: नियम, rule), Nyasa (न्याय, justice), Yuktata (युक्तता, justice), Samya (साम्य, equality and impartiality in law), Vidhi (विधि, precept or rule), Vyavastha (व्यवस्था, regulation), Sambhasa (सम्भाषा, contract or mutual engagement), Prasamvida-patra (प्रसंविदा-पत्र, written contract), Vivadayati (विवादयति, litigate or dispute), Adhivakta (अधिवक्ता, lawyer), Nyayavadi (न्यायवादी, male lawyer), Nyayavadini (न्यायवादिनी, female lawyer), Nyayadata (न्यायदाता, judge), Danda (दण्ड, punishment, penalty or fine), among others.
Classical Hindu law
John Mayne, in 1910, wrote that the classical Hindu law has the oldest pedigree of any known system of jurisprudence. Mayne noted that while being ancient, the conflicting texts on almost every question presents a great difficulty in deciding what the classical Hindu law was. As more literature emerges, and is translated or interpreted, Mayne noted that the conflict between the texts on every matter of law has multiplied, and that there is a lack of consensus between the Western legal scholars resident in India.
Ludo Rocher states that Hindu tradition does not express law in the sense of ius nor of lex. The term "Hindu law" is a colonial construction, and emerged when the colonial rule arrived in South Asia, and when in 1772 it was decided by British colonial officials in consultation with Mughal rulers, that European common law system would not be implemented in India, that Hindus of India would be ruled under their "Hindu law" and Muslims of India would be ruled under sharia (Muslim law). However, Hindu law was neither mentioned, nor in use, nor codified, during the 600 years of Islamic rule of India. An attempt was made to find any old surviving Sanskrit text that mentioned elements of law, and this is how Western editors and translators arrived at the equation that "dharma shastra equals lawbook, code or Institute", states Rocher.
Scholars such as Derrett, Menski and others have repeatedly asked whether and what evidence there is that the Dharmasastras were the actual legal authority before and during the Islamic rule in India. They have also questioned whether the Dharmasastras contain "precepts" or "recommendations", that is whether the jurisprudence mentioned in Dharmasastras was actually ever used in disputes in Indian society. Early scholars during the British colonial rule such as John Mayne suggested that it is probable that Dharma-smriti texts reflect the "practical administration of law", at least before the arrival of Islam in India. However, most later scholars state that Dharma texts of Hinduism are "purely or mostly concerned with moral and religious norms which have some but not a very close relationship to legal practice". A few scholars have suggested that the Dharma-related Smritis such as Manusmriti, Naradasmriti and Parashara Smriti do not embody the Hindu law but are commentaries and scholarly notes on more ancient authoritative legal texts that have been lost or yet to be found.
Classical Hindu law, states Donald Davis, "represents one of the least known, yet most sophisticated traditions of legal theory and jurisprudence in world history. Hindu jurisprudential texts contain elaborate and careful philosophical reflections on the nature of law and religion. The nature of Hindu law as a tradition has been subject to some debate and some misunderstanding both within and especially outside of specialist circles."
In South India, temples were intimately involved in the administration of law.
Sources of Dharma
Śruti have been considered as the authority in the Hindu Dharma.[note 2] The Smritis, such as Manusmriti, Naradasmriti and Parashara Smriti, contribute to the exposition of the Hindu Dharma but are considered less authoritative than Śrutis (the Vedic corpus that includes early Upanishads).[note 3] The root texts of ancient Hindu jurisprudence and law are the Dharma-sūtras. These express that the Shruti, Smriti and Achara are sources of jurisprudence and law. The precedence of these sources is declared in the opening verses of each of the known, surviving Dharma-sūtras. For example,
The source of Dharma is the Veda, as well as the tradition [Smriti], and practice of those who know the Veda. – Gautama Dharma-sūtra 1.1-1.2
The Dharma is taught in each Veda, in accordance with which we will explain it. What is given in the tradition [Smriti] is the second, and the conventions of cultured people are the third. – Baudhayana Dharma-sūtra 1.1.1-1.1.4
The Dharma is set forth in the vedas and the Traditional Texts [Smriti]. When these do not address an issue, the practice of cultured people becomes authoritative. – Vāsiṣṭha Dharma-sūtra 1.4-1.5
— Translated by Donald Davis, The Spirit of Hindu Law
The Smritis, such as Manusmriti, Naradasmriti, Yajnavalkya Smrti and Parashara Smriti, expanded this definition, as follows,
वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम् । आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनस्तुष्टिरेव च ॥
Translation 1: The whole Veda is the (first) source of the sacred law, next the tradition and the virtuous conduct of those who know the (Veda further), also the customs of holy men, and (finally) self-satisfaction (Atmanastushti).
Translation 2: The root of the religion is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself.
— Manusmriti 2.6
वेदः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः । एतच्चतुर्विधं प्राहुः साक्षाद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम् ॥
Translation 1: The Veda, the sacred tradition, the customs of virtuous men, and one's own pleasure, they declare to be the fourfold means of defining the sacred law.
Translation 2: The Veda, tradition, the conduct of good people, and what is pleasing to oneself – they say that is four fold mark of religion.
— Manusmriti 2.12
As a source of Dharma, only three of the four types of texts in the Vedas have behavioral precepts. Lingat notes (abridged),
For the Hindu all belief takes its source and its justification in the Vedas [Śruti]. Consequently every rule of dharma must find its foundation in the Veda. Strictly speaking, the Samhitas do not even include a single precept which could be used directly as a rule of conduct. One can find there only references to usage which falls within the scope of dharma. By contrast, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads contain numerous precepts which propound rules governing behavior.
Bilimoria states the role of Shruti in Hindu Dharma has been inspired by "the belief in a higher natural cosmic order (Rta succeeded later by the concept Dharma) that regulates the universe and provides the basis for its growth, flourishing and sustenance – be that of the gods, human beings, animals and eco-formations".
Levinson states that the role of Shruti and Smriti in Hindu law is as a source of guidance, and its tradition cultivates the principle that "the facts and circumstances of any particular case determine what is good or bad". The later Hindu texts include fourfold sources of Dharma, states Levinson, which include Atmanastushti (satisfaction of one's conscience), Sadachara (local norms of virtuous individuals), Smriti and Sruti.
Lawyers in classical Hindu Law
While texts on ancient Hindu law have not survived, texts that confirm the existence of the institution of lawyers in ancient India have. The Sanskrit text Vivadarnavasetu, in Chapter 3, for example, states,
If the plaintiff or defendant have any excuse for not attending the court, or for not pleading their own cause, or, on any other account, excuse themselves, they shall, at their own option, appoint a person as their lawyer; if the lawyer gains the suit, his principal also gains; if the lawyer is cast, his principal is cast also.
In a cause where the accusation is for murder, for a robbery, for adultery, for (...), the principals shall plead and answer in person; but a woman, a minor, an insane, or a person lacking mental competency may be represented by a lawyer.
— Vivadarnavasetu, Classical Hindu Law Process
Punishment in classical Hindu Law
Ancient texts of the Hindu tradition formulate and articulate punishment. These texts from the last 2500 years, states Terence Day, imply or recognize key elements in their theories of fair punishment: (1) the texts set a standard of Right, in order to define a violation that warrants punishment; (2) they discuss the possibility of a violation thereby defining a wrongdoing; (3) they discuss a theory of responsibility and assignability of a wrongdoing; (4) the texts discuss degrees of guilt, and therewith the form and severity of punishment must match the transgression; (5) they discuss approved and authorized forms of punishments and how these may be properly administered. The goal of punishment, in Hindu law, has been retributive and reformative. Hindu law, states Sarkar, developed the theory of punishment from its foundational theory of what it believed was necessary for the prosperity of the individual and a collection of individuals, of state and non-state.
There are wide variations in the statement of crime and associated punishment in different texts. Some texts for example discuss punishment for crimes such as murder, without mentioning the gender, class or caste of the plaintiff or defendant, while some discuss and differentiate the crime based on gender, class or caste. It is unclear, states Terence Day, whether these were part of the original, because the stylistic, structural and substantive evidence such as inconsistencies between versions of different manuscripts of the same text suggest changes and corruption of the original texts.
Ancient Hindu legal texts and traditions arrived in parts of Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Java, Bali, Malaysia, Thailand, and Burma) as trade grew and as part of a larger culture sharing in ancient Asia. In each of these regions, Hindu law fused with local norms and practices, giving rise to legal texts (Āgamas such as the Kuṭāra-Mānawa in Java, and the Buddhist-influenced Dhammasattas/Dhammathats of Burma and Thailand) as well as legal records embodied (as in India) in stone and copper-plate inscriptions.
As East India Company obtained political and administrative powers, in parts of India, in the late 18th century, it was faced with various state responsibilities such as legislative and judiciary functions. The East India Company desired a means to establish and maintain the rule of law, and property rights, in a stable political environment, to expedite trade, and with minimal expensive military engagement. To this end the Company pursued a path of least resistance, relying upon local intermediaries that were mostly Muslims and some Hindus in various Indian states. The British exercised power by avoiding interference and adapting to local law practices, as explained by the local intermediaries. The colonial state thus sustained what were essentially pre-colonial religious and political law and conflicts, well into the late nineteenth century. The colonial policy on the system of personal laws for India, for example, was expressed by Governor-General Hastings in 1772 as follows,
That in all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the law of the Koran with respect to Mahometans, and those of the Shaster with respect to Gentoos shall be invariably be adhered to.
For Muslims of India, the code of Muslim law was readily available in al-Hidaya and Fatawa-i Alamgiri written under sponsorship of Aurangzeb. For Hindus and other non-Muslims such as Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Tribal people, this information was unavailable. The British colonial officials, for practice, attempted to extract from the Dharmaśāstra the English categories of law and religion for the purposes of colonial administration.
The early period of Anglo-Hindu Law (1772–1828) was structured along the lines of Muslim law practice. It included the extracted portions of law from one Dharmaśāstra by British colonial government appointed scholars (especially Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Sutherland, and Borrodaile) in a manner similar to Islamic al-Hidaya and Fatawa-i Alamgiri. It also included the use of court pandits in British courts to aid British judges in interpreting Shastras just like Qadis (Maulavis) for interpreting the Islamic law.
The arrival of William Bentinck as the Governor-General of British India in 1828, marked a shift towards universal civil code, whose administration emphasized same law for all human beings, individualism and equal treatment to help liberate, empower and end social practices among Hindus and Muslims of India that had received much public coverage in Britain through the publications of Christian missionaries and individuals such as Thomas Macaulay.
Governor-General Dalhousie, in 1848, extended this trend and stated his policy that the law must "treat all natives much the same manner". Over time, between 1828-1855, a series of British parliamentary acts were passed to revise the Anglo-Hindu and Anglo-Muslim laws, such as those relating to the right to religious conversion, widow remarriage, and right to create wills for inheritance. In 1832, the British colonial government abolished accepting religious fatwa as a source of law. In 1835, the British began creating a criminal code that would replace the existing criminal code which was a complex conflicting mixture of laws derived from Muslim texts (Quran) and Hindu texts (Shastras), and this common criminal code was ready by 1855. These changes were welcomed by Hindu law reform movement, but considered abrogating religion-defined rules within the Muslim law. The changes triggered discontent, call for jihad and religious war, and became partly responsible for the 1857 Indian revolt against the British rule.
In 1864, after the East India Company was dissolved and India became a formal part of the British Empire, Anglo-Hindu law entered into a second phase (1864–1947), one in which British colonial courts in India relied less on the Muslim Qadis and Hindu Pandits for determining the respective religious laws, and relied more on a written law. A universal criminal code in India, that did not discriminate between people based on their religion, was adopted for the first time in 1864. It was expanded to include a universal procedural and commercial code by 1882, which overruled pre-existing Anglo-Hindu and Anglo-Muslim laws. However, the personal laws for Muslims remained sharia-based, while the Anglo-Hindu law was enacted independent of any text on matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and the Anglo-Hindu law covered all Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists in India. In 1872, the British crown enacted the Indian Christian Marriage Act which covered marriage, divorce and alimony laws for Indian Christians of all denominations except the Roman Catholics.
The development of legal pluralism, that is separate law based on individual's religion, was controversial in India from the very start.
Modern Hindu law
After the independence of India from the colonial rule of Britain in 1947, India adopted a new constitution in 1950. Most of the legal code from the colonial era continued as the law of the new nation, including the personal laws contained in Anglo-Hindu law for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, the Anglo-Christian law for Christians, and the Anglo-Muslim law for Muslims. Article 44 of the 1950 Indian constitution mandates a uniform civil code, eliminating all religion-based civil laws including Hindu law, Christian law and Muslim law throughout the territory of India. While Hindu law has since been amended to be independent of ancient religious texts, Article 44 of the Indian constitution has remained largely ignored in matters of Muslim law by successive Indian governments since 1950.
An amendment to the constitution (42nd Amendment, 1976) formally inserted the word secular as a feature of the Indian republic. However, unlike the Western concept of secularism which separates religion and state, the concept of secularism in India means acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions.
Since the early 1950s, India has debated whether legal pluralism should be replaced with legal universalism and a uniform civil code that does not differentiate between people based on their religion. This debate remains unresolved. The Quran-based Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 remains the law of the land of modern India for Indian Muslims, while the Parliamentary, non-religious uniform civil code passed in the mid-1950s applies to Indians who are Hindus (along with Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and Parsees), as well as to Indian Christians and Jews. In 1955, India revised its Hindu Marriage Act and it applied to all Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs; scholars contest whether the law applies to cases where either the husband or wife is Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, and the other is a Christian or Muslim.
- ^ The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: "In Hinduism, dharma is a fundamental concept, referring to the order and custom which make life and a universe possible, and thus to the behaviours appropriate to the maintenance of that order."
- ^ Elisa Freschi (2012): The Vedas are not deontic authorities in the absolute sense and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority in Hindu dharma; (note: this differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions).
- ^ A Smriti is a derivative work, has less epistemic authority than the Vedas, and does not have any deontic authority in Hindu dharma.
- ^ William Musyoka (2010), A Casebook on the Law of Succession, ISBN 978-9966744852, page 12
- ^ a b c Ludo Rocher (July–September 1972). "Indian Response to Anglo-Hindu Law". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 92 (3): 419–424. doi:10.2307/600567. JSTOR 600567.
- ^ Werner Menski (2003), Hindu Law: Beyond tradition and modernity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-569921-0, Chapter 1
- ^ a b c Donald Davis Jr (August 2006). "A Realist View of Hindu Law". Ratio Juris. 19 (3): 287–313. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2006.00332.x.
- ^ a b c d John Dawson Mayne (1910), A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage at Google Books, Stevens and Hynes, Harvard Law Library Series, see Preface section
- ^ a b c d e f g Ludo Rocher (1978), Hindu Conceptions of Law, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 29, pages 1283-1297
- ^ a b Dhand, Arti (Fall 2002). "The Dharma of Ethics, the Ethics of Dharma : Quizzing the Ideals of Hinduism". Journal of Religious Ethics. 30 (3): 351. doi:10.1111/1467-9795.00113.
- ^ a b Robert Lingat, "Les Quatre Pieds du Procés," Journal Asiatique 250 (1962), 490–1; and Richard W. Lariviere, "Law and Religion in India," in Law, Morality, and Religion: Global Perspectives. ed. Alan Watson (Berkeley: University of California, 1996); K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Rājadharma (Adyar: Adyar Library, 1941), 23;
- ^ P Bilimoria (2011), The Idea of Hindu Law, Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia, Volume 43, pages 103-130
- ^ a b Marc Gaborieau (June 1985). "From Al-Beruni to Jinnah: Idiom, Ritual and Ideology of the Hindu-Muslim Confrontation in South Asia". Anthropology Today. 1 (3): 7–14. doi:10.2307/3033123. JSTOR 3033123.
- ^ a b Donald Davis (2010), The Spirit of Hindu Law, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521877046, page 13-16, 166-179
- ^ For reviews of the British misappropriations of Dharmaśāstra, see: Richard W. Lariviere, "Justices and Paṇḍitas: Some Ironies in Contemporary Readings of the Hindu Legal Past," in Journal of Asian Studies 48 (1989), pp. 757–769, and Ludo Rocher, "Law Books in an Oral Culture: The Indian Dharmaśāstras," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 137 (1993), pp. 254–267.
- ^ a b Terence Day (1982), The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, ISBN 978-0919812154, pages 22-24
- ^ a b c d e f Susanne Hoeber Rudolph; Lloyd I. Rudolph (August 2000). "Living with Difference in India". The Political Quarterly. 71 (s1): 20–38. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.71.s1.4.
- ^ John Griffith (1986), What is legal pluralism?, The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, Volume 18, Issue 24, pages 1-55
- ^ a b The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Dharma
- ^ Dharma, The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed. (2013), Columbia University Press, Gale, ISBN 978-0787650155
- ^ a b Charles Johnston, The Mukhya Upanishads: Books of Hidden Wisdom, Kshetra, ISBN 978-1495946530, page 481, for discussion: pages 478-505
- ^ a b Paul Horsch (December 2004). Translated by Whitaker, Jarrod. "From Creation Myth to World Law: The early history of Dharma". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (5/6): 423–448. doi:10.1007/s10781-004-8628-3. JSTOR 23497148. S2CID 170190727.
- ^ yuktatA Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Koeln University, Germany
- ^ prasaMvidA Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Koeln University, Germany
- ^ vivAdayati&direction=SE&script=HK&link=yes&beginning=0 vivAdayati Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Koeln University, Germany
- ^ NyAya and other words, Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, Koeln University, Germany
- ^ lawyer Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Koeln University, Germany
- ^ Werner Menski (2003), Hindu Law: Beyond tradition and modernity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195699210, pages 547-549
- ^ JDM Derrett (1999), Law Religion and the State in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0571084784, Chapter 2
- ^ Malcolm Voyce (2010), Law and Anthropology: Current Legal Issues (Editors: Freeman and Napier), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199580910, page 554 with footnote 27
- ^ a b c Axel Michaels (2010), Hinduism and Law: An Introduction (Editors: Lubin and Davis), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521716260, Chapter 3 and pages 58-73 with footnotes
- ^ Donald Davis (2010), The Spirit of Hindu Law, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521877046
- ^ Donald R. Davis, Jr., The Boundaries of Hindu Law: Tradition, Custom, and Politics in Medieval Kerala. Corpus Iuris Sanscriticum et Fontes Iuris Asiae Meridianae et Centralis. Vol. 5. Ed. Oscar Botto (Torino (Italy): CESMEO, 2004).
- ^ Elisa Freschi (2012), Duty, Language and Exegesis in Prabhakara Mimamsa, BRILL, ISBN 978-9004222601, page 62
- ^ James Lochtefeld (2002), "Smrti", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N–Z, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 9780823931798, pages 656 and 461
- ^ Tomothy Lubin (2010), Hinduism and Law: An Introduction (Editors: Lubin and Davis), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521716260, pages 137-143
- ^ a b c Donald Davis (2010), The Spirit of Hindu Law, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521877046, page 27
- ^ a b The Laws of Manu 2.6 with footnotes George Bühler (Translator), The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 25, Oxford University Press
- ^ a b Brian Smith and Wendy Doniger (1992), The Laws of Manu, Penguin, ISBN 978-0140445404, pages 17-18
- ^ a b Robert Lingat (1973), The Classical Law of India, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0520018983, pages 7-8
- ^ Bilimoria, Purushottama (2011), The idea of Hindu law, Journal of Oriental Society of Australia, Vol. 43, pages 103-130
- ^ a b Devid Levinson (2002), Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, Volume 1, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-0761922582, page 829
- ^ Donald R. Davis, Jr., "On Ātmastuṣṭi as a Source of Dharma," Journal of the American Oriental Society 127:3 (2007), pages 279–96
- ^ Werner Menski, Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity (Delhi: Oxford UP, 2003), p.126 and Domenico Francavilla, The Roots of Hindu Jurisprudence: Sources of Dharma and Interpretation in Mīmāṃsā and Dharmaśāstra. Corpus Iuris Sanscriticum. Vol. 7 (Torino: CESMEO, 2006), pp.165–76.
- ^ a b Ludo Rocher (November 1969 – February 1969). ""Lawyers" in Classical Hindu Law". Law & Society Review. 3 (2/3): 383–402. doi:10.2307/3053008. JSTOR 3053008.
- ^ a b c Terence Day (1982), The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, ISBN 978-0919812154, pages 18-22
- ^ John Dawson Mayne (1910), A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage at Google Books, Stevens and Hynes, Harvard Law Library Series
- ^ KL Seshagiri Rao (1997), Practitioners of Hindu Law: Ancient and Modern, Fordham Law Review, vol. 66, pages 1185-1191
- ^ Benoy Kumar Sarkar (March 1921). "The Hindu Theory of the State". Political Science Quarterly. 36 (1): 79–90. doi:10.2307/2142662. JSTOR 2142662.
- ^ Terence Day (1982), The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, ISBN 978-0919812154, Chapters 2 & 3
- ^ MB Hooker (1978), The Indian-derived law texts of Southeast Asia, The Journal of Asian Studies, volume 37, number 2, pages 201-219
- ^ Creese, Helen (2009). Old Javanese legal traditions in pre colonial Bali (PDF). p. 246.
- ^ Hooker 1986.
- ^ Creese 2009a, 2009b.
- ^ a b c Tomothy Lubin et al (2010), Hinduism and Law: An Introduction (Editors: Lubin and Davis), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521716260, Chapter 1
- ^ a b c Washbrook, D. A. (1981). "Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India". Modern Asian Studies. 15 (3): 649–721. doi:10.1017/s0026749x00008714. JSTOR 312295.
- ^ Scott Kugle (2001), Framed, Blamed and Renamed: The Recasting of Islamic Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia, Modern Asian Studies, 35(2), pages 257-313
- ^ Ludo Rocher, "Hindu Law and Religion: Where to draw the line?" in Malik Ram Felicitation Volume. ed. S.A.J. Zaidi (New Delhi, 1972), 190–1.
- ^ J.D.M. Derrett, Religion, Law, and the State in India (London: Faber, 1968), 96; For a related distinction between religious and secular law in Dharmaśāstra, see Timothy Lubin, "Punishment and Expiation: Overlapping Domains in Brahmanical Law," Indologica Taurinensia 33 (2007): 93–122.
- ^ K Ewing (1988), Sharia and ambiguity in South Asian Islam, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0520055759
- ^ A digest of Moohummudan law on the subjects to which it is usually applied by British courts of justice in India Neil Baillie, Smith, Elder & Co. London
- ^ a b Michael Anderson (1995), Institutions and Ideologies: A SOAS South Asia Reader (Studies in Asian Topics, Editors: David Arnold, Peter Robb), Routledge, ISBN 978-0700702848, Chapter 10
- ^ a b c d AK Giri (Editors: Pietro Costa and Danilo Zolo, 2007), The Rule of Law History: Theory and Criticism, Springer, ISBN 978-1402057441, pages 596-597
- ^ Rosie Llewellyn-Jones (2007), The Great Uprising in India: 1857-58, Boydell & Brewer, ISBN 978-1843833048, pages 111-112
- ^ David Cook (2005), Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, ISBN, pages 80-83
- ^ JDM Derrett (1968), Religion, Law and State in India, Faber and Faber, London, ISBN 978-0571087327
- ^ Kunal Parker (Editor: Gerald James Larson, 2001), Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment, Indiana University Press, ISBN 0-253-33990-1, pages 184-199
- ^ Chandra Mallampalli (2004), Christians and Public Life in Colonial South India: 1863-1937, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32321-5, pages 59-64
- ^ Seshagiri Rao, K.L. (1997–1998). Practitioners of Hindu Law: Ancient and Modern. Fordham Law Review, 66, Retrieved 15 October 2008
- ^ a b Shabbeer Ahmed (July–September 2006). "Uniform Civil Code (Article 44 of the Constitution) A Dead Letter". The Indian Journal of Political Science. Indian Political Science Association. 67 (3): 545–552. JSTOR 41856241.
- ^ a b JDM Derrett (1978), Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-9004057531, pages 68-75
- ^ Singh, Pritam. 2005. "Hindu Bias in India's 'Secular' Constitution: probing flaws in the instruments of governance." Third World Quarterly. 26:6, 909–926.
- ^ Donald E Smith (2011), India as a Secular State, Princeton University Press, ISBN 9781178595253
- ^ a b Gerald James Larson (2001), Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment, Indiana University Press, ISBN 0-253-33990-1
- Creese, Helen. 2009a. Old Javanese legal traditions in pre-colonial Bali. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 165(2/3): 241–290.
- Creese, Helen. 2009b. "Judicial processes and legal authority in pre-colonial Bali." Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 165(4): 515–550.
- Davis, Jr., Donald R. (2005). "Intermediate Realms of Law: Corporate Groups and Rulers in Medieval India". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 48 (1): 92–117. doi:10.1163/1568520053450709. JSTOR 25165079.
- Davis, Jr., Donald R. (2004). "Dharma in Practice: Ācāra and Authority in Medieval Dharmaśāstra" (PDF). Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (5): 813–830. doi:10.1007/s10781-004-8651-4. hdl:2027.42/42941. S2CID 169619514.
- Davis, Jr. Donald R. 1999. “Recovering the Indigenous Legal Traditions of India: Classical Hindu Law in Practice in Late Medieval Kerala," Journal of Indian Philosophy 27 (3): 159–213.
- Davis, Jr. Donald R. 2010. The Spirit of Hindu Law. Cambridge University Press.
- Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1968. Religion, Law, and the State in India. London: Faber & Faber.
- Dhavan, Rajeev. 1992. “Dharmaśāstra and Modern Indian Society: A Preliminary Exploration.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 34 (4): 515–540.
- Fuller, C.J. 1988. "Hinduism and Scriptural Authority in Modern Indian Law." Comparative Studies in Society and History. 30:2, 225–248.
- Hacker, Paul. 2006, Dharma in Hinduism, Journal of Indian Philosophy 34:5.
- Hooker, M.B., ed. 1986. The Laws of South-East Asia. Volume 1: The pre-modern texts. Singapore: Butterworth & Co.
- Jain, M.P. 1990. Outlines of Indian Legal History. 5th Ed, Nagpur, Wadhwa & Co.
- Jha, Ganganath (trans.), Manusmṛti with the Manubhāṣyya of Medhātithi, including additional notes, 1920.
- Lariviere, Richard W. 2003. The Nāradasmrti. crit. ed. and trans. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
- Lariviere, Richard W. 1997. "Dharmaśāstra, Custom, `Real Law,' and `Apocryphal' Smrtis." In: Recht, Staat, und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien, ed. Bernhard Kölver. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 97–110.
- Lariviere, Richard W. 1996. "Law and Religion in India." Law, Morality, and Religion: Global Perspectives, ed. Alan Watson. Berkeley: University of California, 75–94.
- Lingat, Robert. 1973. The Classical Law of India. trans. J.D.M. Derrett. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.
- Lubin, Timothy. 2007. "Punishment and Expiation: Overlapping Domains in Brahmanical Law," Indologica Taurinensia 33: 93–122.
- Lubin, Timothy. 2010. "Indic Conceptions of Authority." In: Hinduism and Law: An Introduction, ed. T. Lubin, D.R. Davis, Jr., and J.K. Krishnan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–53.
- Lubin, Timothy. 2012. "Legal Diglossia: Modeling Discursive Practices in Premodern Indic Law." In: Bilingual Discourse and Cross-cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit and Tamil in Mediaeval India, ed. Whitney Cox and Vincenzo Vergiani (Paris/Pondicherry: École française d’Extrême-Orient), pp. 411–455.
- Lubin, Timothy, Donald R. Davis, Jr., and Jayanth K. Krishnan, eds. 2010. Hinduism and Law: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Menski, Werner. 2003. Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity. Delhi: Oxford UP.
- Olivelle, Patrick. 2004a. "The Semantic History of Dharma in the Middle and late Vedic Periods." Journal of Indian Philosophy 32 (5): 491–511.
- Olivelle, Patrick. 2004b. The Law Code of Manu. New York: Oxford UP.
- Olivelle, Patrick. 2000. Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasistha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
- Rangaswami Aiyangar, K.V. 1941. Rājadharma. Adyar: Adyar Library.
- Rocher, Ludo. 1978. “Hindu Conceptions of Law”, Hastings Law Journal, 29:6, 1283–1305.
- Rocher, Ludo. 1972. "Hindu Law and Religion: Where to draw the line?" Malik Ram Felicitation Volume, ed. S.A.J. Zaidi. New Delhi, 167–194.
- Rocher, Ludo. 1956. Vacaspati Misra: Vyavaharacintamani. A digest on Hindu legal procedure. Crit. Ed., with Introduction, Annotated Translation, and Appendices. Ghent University.
- Rocher, Rosane. 2010. "The Creation of Anglo-Hindu Law." In: Hinduism and Law: An Introduction, ed. T. Lubin, D.R. Davis, Jr., and J.K. Krishnan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 78–88.
- Solanki, Gopika. 2011. "Adjudication in Religious Family Laws: Cultural Accommodation, Legal Pluralism and Gender Equality in India". Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Washbrook, David A. 1981. "Law, State, and Agrarian Society in Colonial India", Modern Asian Studies. 15:3, 649–721.
- Wezler, Albrecht. 2004. “Dharma in the Veda and the Dharmaśāstras.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 32 (5): 629–654.