Verse 8.212 [Resumption Of Gifts]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

धर्मार्थं येन दत्तं स्यात् कस्मै चिद् याचते धनम् ।
पश्चाच्च न तथा तत् स्यान्न देयं तस्य तद् भवेत् ॥ २१२ ॥

dharmārthaṃ yena dattaṃ syāt kasmai cid yācate dhanam |
paścācca na tathā tat syānna deyaṃ tasya tad bhavet || 212 ||

When a man gives money, for a pious purpose, to another who asks for it,—if, subsequently, it is not used for that purpose, then, it shall not be given to him.—(212)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

A man comes to the rich man praying—‘I am desirous of marrying for the sake of issue,’ or ‘I wish to perform such and such a sacrifice,’ ‘give, me some money’;—and the money is given to him;—but the man does not marry, and spends the money either in gambling or over prostitutes, or for something else, laying it out on interest or agriculture,—then ‘it shall not be given to him.’

When the money has been given already, there can be no sense in forbidding the gift; (A) hence the sentence should be taken to mean that ‘it shall be taken back from him.’ (B) Or the former clause itself may be taken in a figurative sentence,—the word ‘gives’ being taken in the sense of ‘promises’; the meaning in this case would be that ‘the promised money shall not be given.’ In this sense we have the assertion of Gautama (5.23)—‘Even after promising, no money shall be given to one who is found to be unrighteous.’

“Of these two explanations (A & B), which is the more reasonable?”

Both are reasonable: the taking back of what has been given, and also not giving what has been promised. In another Smṛti -text we find both these courses laid down:—Beginning with the words—‘I am going to perform such and such an act,’ the text goes on to say—‘what is given in ignorance is as good as not given’ Nārada, 4.10-11). This means that when money has been given for a certain act, if that act is not done, the money, even though paid, shall ho brought back from the receiver’s house; and the opinion of Nārada is that in this case there was only a promise of the gift, and its fulfilment would be dependent upon the actual fulfilment of the purpose for which it had been asked for.—(212)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Kartāhametat karmeti’—(Medhātithi, p. 1009, l. 5).—The text of Nārada (4.10-11) is—‘Kartāhametat karmeti pratilābhecchayā ca yat Apātre pātramityukte kārye vā dharmasaṃhite Yaddattam syādavijñānādadattam tadapi smṛtam.’

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 137), which explains the meaning to be—‘If the man begs money for the performance of a pious act, but having got it, he does not do the act, then the gift should be recovered from him.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 348), to the effect that when money has been given to a Brāhmaṇa who has begged it for the purpose of performing a sacrifice or some such act,—but he does not do such an act,—then the money is to be taken back from him;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (94a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Ārthaśāstra (6.94).—‘In some cases the resumption of a gift is permitted; if one has given away his entire property, or his wife and son, or his own self, it should be restored to him; if a gift has been promised to a certain person under the impression that he is deserving of it, it may be resumed on his being found to be undeserving; u (?) if a gift was promised to a man for the purpose of helping him in the carrying on of such meritorious work as the tending of cows and the like, it may be resumed if he is found to be using it in stealing, adultery and such acts; if it has been promised to a man under the impression that he has rendered help to the giver, it may be resumed if the man is found either to have done him no good or to have actually done him harm; if a gift has been promised by virtue of certain special qualifications in the recipient, it may be resumed if he is not found to possess those qualifications. Clever judges shall permit such resumption of gifts in such a manner as neither the giver nor the recipient may be hit hard.’

Nārada (14.4 et seq.).—‘A deposit, a pledge, joint property, a son, wife, the entire property of one having offspring, and what has been promised to another man:—these have been declared to be inalienable by one even in the worst plight...... The price paid for merchandise, wages, a present offered for amusement, a gift made from affection, or from gratitude, or for sexual intercourse with a woman, and a respectful gift,—these are valid gifts. The following are invalid gifts: what has been given under the influence of fear, anger, hatred, sorrow or pain; or as a bribe, or in jest, or fraudulently, under false pretences; or by a child, or by a fool, or by a person not bis own master, or by one distressed, or by one intoxicated, or by one insane, or in consideration of a reward, thinking this man will do me some service;— and so is invalid what has been given from ignorance to an unworthy man thought to be worthy, or for a purpose thought to be virtuous. The donee who covets invalid gifts and accepts them through avarice,—and the donor of what ought not to be given,—both deserve punishment.’

Bṛhaspati (16.2, 8-11).—‘That which may not be given is of eight kinds: joint property, son, wife, pledges, one’s entire property, a deposit, wealth, what has been borrowed for use and what has been promised to another. The following eight are recognised as valid gifts:—wages for pleasure derived, price of merchandise, fee paid to or for a damsel, present to a benefactor, present through reverence, kindness or affection. What has been given by one angry or resenting an injury, or through inadvertence, or by one distressed, or by a junior, mad man, a terrified person, one intoxicated or overaged, or outcast or idiot, or one afflicted with grief or illness,—or what is given in jest;—all these have been declared to be void gifts. When anything has been given through desire for reward, or to an unworthy person mistaken for a worthy one, or for an immoral purpose,—the donor may resume the gift.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākāra, p. 129, p. 132, p. 135).—‘A man may give away his entire property over and above what may be necessary for the maintenance of his family, excepting his house. If a man has promised a gift to a Brāhmaṇa of his own accord, if he refuses to give it he should he made to pay it, and also pay the first amercement. A man may resume what he may have given under the influence of love or anger, or when he was not a free agent, or when he was distressed. Or one made by a eunuch, an intoxicated person, or under a misapprehension, or in jest. If a bribe has been promised for some work, it should never be given, even if the work may be accomplished.’

Yājñavalkya (2-175, 176).—‘With the exception of the wife and son, everything may he given away, in consonance with the interests of the family; if a man has offspring, he should not give away his entire property; nor may he give to one person what has been promised to another. The acceptance of a gift should he public, specially in the ease of immovable property; on having given or promised a gift, one should not resume it.’

Gautama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 133).—‘Even though he may have promised a gift, he shall not give it if the recipient is found to be unrighteous.’