The Aryan codes agree with those of other Nations in securing what in the West
are called natural rights: of person, free locomotion and assembly, property and
reputation and the like.
b) Access to Land
It is a fundamental fact of existence in this world that a man needs space on land
(the dry surface of our planet) to live and labour: and this, to the exclusion of others.
Apart from his dwelling and work-place, man\u2019s food (and water) and most natural
ressources for his use are also to be found on and extracted from land. On land, too,
find satisfaction his needs for air and sunlight. If man has no access to land freely then
his whole life will be limited accordingly; if he has no access at all, he will cease to
exist.
The Aryan lawgivers recognised this need also and provided for it very fully and
unequivocally. Naarada says : \u201cA householder\u2019s house and his field are considered as
the two fundamentals of his existence. Therefore let not the king upset either of them;
for that is the root of householders\u201d6.(The king\u2019s primary duty is to protect the people in
his realm; if householders have not a piece of land to live and work and obtain food, or
the means for food, the king would be failing in his duty. Governments today fail
abysmally in this respect.)
Furthermore, a man\u2019s enjoyment of his land must not be disturbed by others.
Brrhaspati states : \u201cA privy, a fireplace, a pit or a receptable for leavings of food and
other (rubbish), must never be made very close to the house of another man.\u201d7
This
rule has, as do others, a wider application in respect of the general environment,
adhering toa h i m\u00basaa, non-injury.
However, as we shall see, the situation was not entirely ideal. In the same
lawbooks we find private ownership of land, sales, mortgages, leases, division of
estates (some very large) and the like. Nonetheless every settlement , a hamlet,
village or town, has its own stock of common land all around. The most authoritative
lawbook, theM a n u s m rrti8 ordains: \u201c on all sides of a village (graama: human community)
let there be a space-reserve (parihaara) of 100 dhanus (= about 600 feet) or 3 szamyaa-
throws; three times that extend round a town (nagara)\u201d9 . That was the boundary.
Beyond was thea r a n-ya, the wild, the jungle or desert, no man\u2019s land: anyone who
wished could have a piece for himself with the consent of the community. This is seen
plainly withv aanaprasthas (= forest-dwellers) or vaikhanasas (hermits or ascetics) who
live outside the communal settlement. But householders also do the same when they
start their own family or indepedent individual living. The lawgiver Baudhaayana says:
\u201cAfter departing (from his ancestral home), he stops at the extremity of the village, or
the boundary, builds there a hut or a cottage and enters it\u201d.10 (For extension of, or
disputes over, boundaries see V g, below.)
This mode of life persisted in many rural parts of India right up to the 20th century,
according to economic historians11 : fields around the village were held by the whole
community. Marx noted with admiration the stability and \u201csimplicity of the productive
organism in these self-sufficing communities which constantly reproduce themselves...
6N, XI, 42.
7Brr . XIX, 26. Also Kauttilya\u2019sAa rthasz aa stra, III, 8.
8Numerous editions of Manu\u2019s lawbook, known also asM aa n a v a d h a r m a-szaastra (=M). Transl by
G.B\u00fchler, SBE XXV, reprint 1982.
9 M, VIII, 237.sz amya is a short stick, thrown for measurement.
10 III, 1, 17.Baudhaa yana-dharmasuu tra, various eds 1884, 1934 (=Ba). Transl by G.B\u00fchler, SBE XIV,
reprint 1965.
11Romesh Dutt, The Economic History of India, Delhi 1960, Vol I, p 107.
EPAI 3
Leave a Comment