Dharma: Some Aspects

DR. A. C. NAYAK

DHARMA OCCUPIES a central position both in Indian life and in In­dian thought. It has been used in various contexts to mean different things. One of the most significant aspects of dharma, however, is that it stands for certain sustaining prin­ciples (Dharanaddharma mityahuh). Dharma not only sustains the indivi­dual as well as different groups in the society but it also upholds the society as a whole. The violation of the prin­ciples of dharma leads to the utter destruction of the entire social struc­ture (Dharma eva hato hanti).

The myth of dharma in the sense of something of a permanent value in all possible circumstances is doomed at the very outset in view of changing system of values relevant to a certain definite context only. Dharma, accord­ing to Dandekar, “has always been regarded as not being static. The con­text of dharma has often changed in the changing contexts of time, space and environments”. It may be true so far as it goes, but for the Indian mind, it is also a fact that there is a sort of irrepressibility associated with the concept of dharma which cannot be lost sight of. Dhanna is venerable, eternal and universal. (Esha dharmah, sanatanah)

Let us consider saadhaarana dharmas, which are expected to be duties of universal application and validity. When we deal with the cardi­nal values like truth (satya)or non­violence (ahimsa) our footing is on a firmer, a surer, ground than when we talk of duties of a clan or a class. But even in these cases also controversy cannot be always avoided, for we have to take into consideration certain con­crete situation or a context in order to understand and apply these concepts. In a different and new situation satya or ahimsa in the traditional sense may not hold at all on account of some overriding reasons. Satya, in certain context, may be very far from a mere simplistic adherence to speaking the literal truth, as Kazi Nazrul Islam has aptly pointed out, and Ahimsa may be practised through destruction of all evil-doers, as Ambedkar has rightly remarked. It implies that the sus­taining value of Dhanna is only rela­tive to the context; saadhaarana dhar­mas are also meaningful and appli­cable with reference to the context. It is also inevitable that in a complicated situation we should be called upon to make a choice and pass our judge­ment in accordance with the scheme of values chosen by us; this is unavoid­able as the matter stands.

In our day to day existence in the society and in our inter-communal or even international transactions it becomes so very necessary that a de­liberate choice be made in favour of what Sita would designate as Saadhu dharma, dharma that respects the dignity of others as much as it re­spects one’s own. Mark her words, yathaa tava tathanyesham (as in your case, so in case of others), while giv­ing advice to Ravana concerning pro­tection of women, “Saadhu dhar­mamavekshasva saadha saadhuvratam cara, Yathaa tava tathaanyeshaam rakshya dhara nisaachara”.

Justice can be ensured if an equal treatment is meted out to people irrespective of the fact whether they belong to us or not. The concept of fairness, according to Rawls, is fundamental to justice. And the idea of fair­ness is inherent in the notion of Saadhu dharma as envisaged in Valmiki Ramayana and is propagated in the form of Sita’s advice to Ravana.

However, there is nothing like social justice immutably fixed once and for all; social justice needs to be reviewed and re-evaluated from time to time in accordance with the demands of the society, just as the notion of dharma also undergoes change according to the social needs. Moreover, in doing justice to one group of people we may conveniently forget that injustice has been done to others and even if we may invoke the concept of dharma to justify our conduct, it can­not make us free from the changes of injustice at least in that respect. In trying to eradicate injustice in certain form we may be involved in greater injustice in some other respect, and we should not lose sight of this. Per­fect social justice, therefore, is a myth; we have got to be satisfied with the conception of a working social justice.

Allowing a majority of the people to suffer from poverty while a few are allowed to live in luxury is also an injustice that is being perpetrated in most of the countries even today. When we come to consider the misery of the millions of our own countrymen who are suffering from abject poverty even now, we should not forget that poverty is not “the monopoly of the scheduled castes; millions of other people share the same misery and poverty. The tribes, Girijans and Adi­vasis are much worse off socially and economically than the scheduled castes.”

A working social justice under the circumstances, not any perfect justice, of course, which is a will-o-the­-wisp, can be ensured only in a society where there is constant vigilance and a genuine willingness to eradicate imbal­ance which is another name for injustlice. Dharma, in this context, would consist in the eradication of imbalance wherever it is found, not only in eco­nomic matters but also in the field education, employment and opportu­nity provided to different groups people. So far so good. Theoretically, may be alright. The crux of the prob­lem, however, lies in the fact that in a society where in the words of Goldsmith, “Laws govern the poor and the rich rule the Law”, social justice in a large scale would not in fact be allowed to operate.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that we can have only instances here and there of social justice being en­sured in a piecemeal manner, e.g., dealing with slavery, untouchability, cruelty towards unfortunate children who are born and brought up on the footpath, torture of women for dowry, etc. A working social justice, therefore, would actually mean only such piece­meal justice meted out to different groups at different times, thus main­taining balance from time to time, as far as possible, by eradication of ex­cesses wherever they may be. The well-known statement of Lord Krishna in the Bhagavadgita. “Dharma samsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge” (I get myself incarnated in different forms from time to time, in order to establish Dharma) can be appreciated, in my view, in this light.

Halbfass finds certain kinship of Dharma with Dhriti and refers to a passage in Yogasutra bhaashya Viva­rana attributed to Sankara as follows: “evam varnaashramaanaamapyan yonyopakaarena dhritikaaranatvam, parasparopaashrayana hi jaged akhilamapi dhriyate”. In defence of “mutual support and sustenance” for which both the concepts of dhriti and dharma stand, Halbfass points out “Mutual support and upholding ap­pear as fundamental conditions for the preservation of the natural and social world. Interdependence is a pervasive principle which is both factual and normative. All entities in the world, in particular living being and different social groups, have to support each other actively or passively. Self-preservation is impossible without mutual support and sustenance”.

So far so good. But mere suste­nance value, according to me, though undoubtedly important, is not enough. Moreover, under certain circumstances, it, may not be conducive to justice. Justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed in the name of dharma; dharma should rather facilitate the implementation of justice in the soci­ety. An unjust society can be held together for quite long on the basis of mutual sustenance of different power­ful groups at the cost of the weaker section and this may be perpetrated as dharma in a particular society. But we certainly should not opt for Dharma in this sense, for, in the words of Mahabharata, it is not dharma, it is only Kudharma. In that case, dharma would stand in need of appropriate modification so that we may come to have what Sita in Valmiki Ramayana regards as Saadhu dharma. Society should be sustained on principles which would not only suit us but even those who do not belong to us, so that respective growth of different groups without any exploitation of one by the other may be ensured.

To me it appears that Varna dharma can be an example of saadhu dharma if and only if varnavyavastha is determined by guna and karma alone, as explicitly mentioned in the Bhagavadgita, not by birth. Guna and Karma are not determined by birth and heredity; environment as well as personal efforts and aspirations of the individual have a significant role to play in this regard. And what is more guna and karma are not fixed once and for all. People should not be al­lowed either to prosper or suffer gen­eration after generation.