Verse 8.277

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

विट् शूद्रयोरेवमेव स्वजातिं प्रति तत्त्वतः ।
छेदवर्जं प्रणयनं दण्डस्यैति विनिश्चयः ॥ २७७ ॥

viṭ śūdrayorevameva svajātiṃ prati tattvataḥ |
chedavarjaṃ praṇayanaṃ daṇḍasyaiti viniścayaḥ || 277 ||

On the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, the inflicting of punishment shall be of the same kind, according to their respective castes,—barring mutilation; such is the decision.—(277)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of the same kind’—i.e., the lowest and the middlemost amercements, mentioned in the preceding verse. The order should be as follows:—when the Vaiśya abuses the Śūdra, he shall be fined the lowest amercement, and when the Śūdra abuses the Vaiśya, he shall be fined the middle amercement.

‘The inflicting of the punishment shall be the same, barring mutilation’;—This includes the ‘cutting off of the tongue’ laid down in verse 270.

‘According to their respective castes’— This should not be understood to mean that the said fine is to be inflicted when they abuse men of their own caste; the meaning is that the fine shall be in accordance with the castes mentioned. The sense of the verse is that when these men abuse men of their own castes, the punishment shall be as laid down before.

‘Inflicting’—Promulgating.

When the Kṣatriya abuses the Vaiśya, the fine shall consist of half of the lowest amercement; the same scale shall apply when the Brāhmaṇa abuses the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.—(277)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 250), which adds the following:—The rule laid down in the preceding verse is applicable to the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also;—‘Svajātiṃprati’—‘as between persons of the same caste’ (the punishment is to be inflicted) ‘tattvataḥ,’ in accordance with the superiority or inferiority of position and qualifications;—‘chedavarjam’, this precludes the cutting of the tongue.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.207), to the effect that when the Vaiśya abuses the Śūdra, he is to be fined 50 paṇas. Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—‘Viṭśūdrayoḥ in the case of the Vaiśya and the Śūdra—‘Svajātiṃ prati’—insuring each other,—‘evameva,’ the case is to be treated as in the case of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya,—i. e., when the Vaiśya insults the Śūdra, he should pay the ‘first amercement,’ and when the Śūdra insults the Vaiśya, he should pay the ‘middle amercement,’—this should be the penalty inflicted, and there is to be no cutting of the tongue;—‘tattvataḥ,’ this is the legal punishment.—This verse, as also the preceding one, refers to a case where the defamation is in regard to a heinous offence.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 150a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.276-278)

(See texts under 268-270.)