Verse 8.49

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

धर्मेण व्यवहारेण छलेनाचरितेन च ।
प्रयुक्तं साधयेदर्थं पञ्चमेन बलेन च ॥ ४९ ॥

dharmeṇa vyavahāreṇa chalenācaritena ca |
prayuktaṃ sādhayedarthaṃ pañcamena balena ca || 49 ||

He shall make the advanced money repaid by means of (a) good faith, (b) tactful transaction, (c) trick, (d) moral pressure, and (c) force, the fifth.—(49)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(a) ‘Dharmeṇa,’ ‘by means of good faith’;—i.e., receiving little by little;—‘so much to-day, so much to-morrow, so much the day after to-morrow;—just as it behoves him to maintain his family, so also is it his duty to help me,—I also am a member of his family and as such a sharer in his wealth,’—the use of such language constitutes ‘good faith.’

(b) The man who has absolutely no property should be made to repay the debt by ‘tactful transaction’; on the same principle on which, for the purpose of drawing out water from the ear one puts more water into it, the creditor should advance to the debtor more money, in order to enable him to have recourse to agriculture or trade or some other means of acquiring wealth, and then receive from him the wealth thus obtained. The ‘vyavahāra’ that consists in filing a suit before the King is not what is meant by the term as used hero; since one should have recourse to this only when all other means have failed, and as such it is included under ‘force.’

(c) When, even though possessed of the requisite wealth, the debtor does not pay in a straight manner, he should be made to pay by means of ‘trick’; i.e., under some such pretext as that of a marriage-ceremony or some such occasion, he should borrow from him a bracelet or some such ornament, and not return it until the debt has been cleared off.

(d) ‘Moral pressure’;—by giving up food and constantly sitting at the man’s door and so forth.

(e) ‘Force’;—presenting one’self before the King’s court; where the King shall have the man called quietly and by inflicting some punishment make him pay up. The ‘bala’ of the text does not mean the creditor’s strength in the shape of his relatives and wealth, etc.; because of the maxim that the ‘force’ or ‘strength’ of the subject lies in the King, which has been propounded in connection with the present context.

Others have explained the verse ṭo mean that by the means here enumerated the King shall have the debt repaid;—and their reason for saying so lies in the fact that it occurs in the context dealing with the duties of the King. The sense of the verse thus is that ‘when the amount claimed has been either admitted by the debtor or decreed by the court, the King shall make him pay it up by these methods;—and he shall not, all at once, have the entire property of the debtor handed over to the creditor; since the kindly treatment of both parties constitutes the King’s duty: and if the debtor’s entire property were handed over to the creditor, his whole family would perish, and this would not be right. To this end we have the declaration—‘Without absolutely ruining him, the debtor should he made to pay little by little, according to his income, specially so in the case of the Brāhmaṇa,—when the King is righteous.’ So that the man should be made to pay the principal along with a small amount as interest; but in the event of the man possessing wealth more than what is needed for the maintenance of his family, he should be made to pay the entire amount of the claim; and if this be not possible, then ‘the debt shall be liquidated by service, etc.’ (8.177).

In the former explanation, the creditor shall not have recourse to ‘trick’ or ‘moral pressure,’ without notifying the same to the King.—(49).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Vyavahāreṇa’.—‘By business-transaction: advancing more money to the debtor with which, as capital, the latter would carry on some trade, with the profits of which he would gradually clear off the older debt also’ (Medhātithi);—‘by law-suit’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Narāyāṇa; noted but rejected by Medhātithi);—‘by threatening a suit’ (Nandana);—‘by forced sale of property’ (Rāghavānanda).

Both Buhler and Hopkins represent Medhātithi as explaining this term to mean ‘forced labour’. But there is nothing in Medhātithi to show this. What Medhātithi means is quite clear, and it is made clearer by the illustration given by him of ‘karṇodaka’; it is a common practice in India that when water gets into the ear and cannot be easily got out, people pour more water into it, and along with this latter, the former water also flows out.

This verse is quoted in and Aparārka (p. 645), which adds the following notes:—‘dharma:’ is ‘truth’,—‘vyavahāra’, stands for such evidence as is documentary, oral and so forth,—‘chala’ is trick,—‘ācaritam,’ ‘custom of the country’,—‘balam’ means oppression by starving and so forth.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 67);—and in Mitākṣarā (on 2.40), which adds the following notes:—‘dharmeṇa,’ i.e., ‘by truthful persuasion’,—‘vyavahāreṇa’, i.e., ‘by adducing witnesses, documents and other kinds of evidence’,—‘chalena’, i.e., borrowing from him ornaments and other things under the pretext of some ceremonies &c. in the family,—‘ācaritena’, i.e., by starving,—the fifth method being the application of ‘bala’, force, in the shape of keeping him chained and so forth;—by these methods is the creditor to recover the money that he had advanced on interest.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 191);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 19a);—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (78b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (4.122).—(Same as Manu.)

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 67).—‘When the debtor is openly arrested and brought before the assembly of men and kept there till he pays—this, being in consonance with the custom of the country, is called Legal Proceedings. By beating, by arresting, by work, by law-suit, and first of all, by peaceful persuasion,—should the creditor obtain repayment of his dues.’

Nārada (1.122).—‘By the mode consonant with religion, by legal proceedings, by fraud, by customary mode, and fifthly, by force, a creditor may recover what he has lent.’

Bṛhaspati (11.54 et seq.).—‘When a debtor has admitted a debt, it may he recovered from him by the expedients of friendly expostulation, by moral suasion, by artful management, by compulsion and by confinement in the house. When a debtor is caused to pay by the advice of friends and kinsmen, by friendly remonstrances, by constant following, or by the creditor starving himself, it is termed Moral Suasion. When a creditor with a crafty design, borrows something from the debtor and withholds it as a pledge, and thereby enforces payment of the debt, it is termed Artful Management;—when the debtor is fettered and conducted to the creditor’s house, where he is compelled by beating and other forcible means, to pay the debt, it is called Compulsion;—when the debtor is made to pay by confining his son, wife, or cattle, or by sitting at his door, it is termed Confinement in the House.’