In the Mahbhratas formulation, how are the roles of Brahmin and Katriya accommodated

in authorising and enforcing dharma? How are they kept in check, and why?

Dharma has rightly been seen as a central concept in the religions of the subcontinent and
features extensively in literature from the Vedic period onwards. It is important to bear in
mind that the context in which this word appears often colours its meaning, and that its
connotations of religion in modern India reveal only part of its sense in the ancient texts.
Since there is no cognate word in English that can express the richness of meaning
encapsulated in dharma, its frequent occurrence in the Mahbhrata has proven a problem
for translators over the centuries. Moreover, the change in meaning from the Vedic period
through to the time of the dharmastras presents a further angle to consider. For the
present purposes, the dharma mentioned in certain passages of the Mahbhrata that are
to be discussed in this essay will refer, unless specified otherwise, to the Basic Theme of
dharma that Fitzgerald postulates: that is, what is transcendently good or right to do or
be.
1
This essay will argue that the Mahbhrata places prime importance on Brahmins and
katriyas enforcing dharma by virtue of their positions in society. While there are some
actions which are the dharma of all individuals, irrespective of caste, there are particular
deeds which constitute the dharma of specific groups of people. These particular deeds are
broadly enforced by Brahmins and katriyas, but there is also the indication that members
of different castes know, in general, what their respective dharma is. The specific dharma of
Brahmins and katriyas impose checks and balances on each other by virtue of their
individual stipulations. Moreover, the all-pervading importance of dharma to an individuals
station after death creates restrictions on the conduct of Brahmins and katriyas too. It is,
of course, apparent that the other two varnas do not have a means of exerting restrictions
or tangible influence over the Brahmins and katriyas.

Indeed, these two classes are able to authorize and enforce dharma by virtue of their
positions in society, themselves a product of dharma. Brahmins enjoyed a monopoly over
officiating at the all-important sacrificial rites that all members of society were enjoined to
observe (The gods make no efforts on behalf on anyone who militates against sacrificial
worship. MBh 12.60.40-45; By all means all the Orders should offer sacrificial worship,
that is a certainty, for nothing known in the three worlds is the equal of sacrificial worship.
MBh 12.60.50
2
). Ritual action is based on the Vedas (MBh 12.60.10), and so the Brahmins
knowledge and recitation of the Vedas puts them in an unparalleled position of authority
with respect to matters spiritual. Bhma emphasises that it is the particular dharma of
Brahmins to recite and teach the Vedas, and so, if the Vedas are taken as the basis of
spiritual activity, it is clear that the dharma of Brahmins enables them to enforce the
dharma of all people with respect to observing sacrificial worship.

While katriyas are encouraged to worship sacrificial rites, they cannot officiate at them or
teach the Vedas (MBh 12.60.10-20). Instead, it is their particular dharma to rule. Bhma
expounds at length the primacy of the dharma of katriyas (specifically that of kings, who
were, of course, drawn from the Katriya class) over the dharmas of other orders. For
example, all the Meritorious Lawful Deeds and the secondary Laws of the other three
Orders come from the Law of the king and all Laws follow after the kings Law (MBh
12.63.20-30). And it is one of the stipulations of the particular dharma of the king to ensure
that members of the four Orders are acting appropriately, according to their respective
dharma: The Laws for all four of the Orders of society are to be raised on high by vigorous,
manly katriyas (MBh 12.65). Bhma recounts that Indra said to Mndhtar: The blessed
Progenitor, who sent forth this entire world, favours the katra for purposes of initiating and
restricting the doing of Lawful Deeds (MBh 12.65.30). Thus the dharma of kings
(rjadharma) and of katriyas more generally is to also ensure that dharma is enforced. By
virtue of his position as the supreme secular authority of the realm, a king, in particular, is
best able to ensure that the people of his kingdom act appropriately; that is, according to
their dharma. A clear example of this is in the kings ability to promote a vaiya and in the

1
Fitzgerald, Dharma and its Translation in the Mahbhrata
2
All translations and book, chapter and line references are to Fitzgeralds translation.
bestowal of gifts and hand-me-downs to dras, whose dharma prohibits them from owning
property.

Other than taking punitive action to ensure his subjects are dharmic (cf. MBh 12.64: Wild
men, moved by desire and anger, refrain from doing evil because they fear the king and
MBh 12.65.25-30: When exalted kings avert evil through the administration of the rod of
force, then Law does not waver, is valid, everlasting, supreme), the king is also able to
indirectly influence the conduct of his people. This, too, is the result of the particular
dharma of the Katriya class. It is a katriyas dharma to create stability in the realm by
preventing internal dissent (through use of the rod of force mentioned above) and, more
importantly, averting external threats. Bhma explicitly says that the king has no more
important duty than the destruction of barbarians and that the king has fully
accomplished his duties by protecting his subjects (MBh 12.60.10-20). While these two
quoted clauses refer to the dharma of kings (rjaharma), Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2 Verse 31
shows that it is the dharma of the Katriya class in general to fight. Creating security in the
realm brings the peace necessary for ordinary citizens who are not lords spiritual or secular
to engage in their respective svadharma: for example, in the case of vaiyas, whose dharma
is honest husbandry and agriculture, stability in the realm is a prerequisite for the
performance of their svadharma. This indirect manner in which a king (or Katriya, in
general) can encourage dharmic actions upon his subjects, when coupled with the more
direct forms of enforcement, truly demonstrates Bhma s contention that a king benefits
those who rely on him in this life and the next (MBh 12.68.55-60), since the effects of
performing ones own dharma are also observed after ones death (cf. the continuum of
dharma mentioned by Fitzgerald).

One might also suggest here that Hackers contention that dharma is radically empirical
might also be relevant in this discussion. Despite emphasising the importance of each
individual acting according to his own svadharma and that of his class, Bhma makes no
mention to Yudhistra in this passage of how a king or Brahmin might in fact promulgate
the dharma of particular classes to the public: there is, instead, the indication that
individuals are already somewhat aware of their dharma. This, of course suggests in turn
that dharma might encapsulate the customs and conventions of particular groups of
people, which of course, do not need to be explicitly taught. If the stipulations of dharma
are thus not derivable from a philosophical principle or from a religious source
3
but
learned empirically, Hackers quoting of the pastambadharmasutra is appropriate to
mention: in circumstances in which custom or convention do not clearly stipulate the
appropriate course of action, What ryas praise when it is done, that is dharma. Indras
recounted statement that creatures go awry because of the corruption of the king (MBh
12.65.24) could suggest that the dharma of a king or Brahmin in setting an example that
others follow is another means of indirect influence on the conduct of the citizen body.

While much of this essay has been about Brahmins and katriyas propagating dharmic
conduct among citizens, it is important at this juncture to briefly discuss their influence on
each other. The very nature of the positions that Brahmins and katriyas occupied in
society created a system of checks and balances that subsequently imposed restrictions on
members of both of these classes. If Brahmins are taken as authorities spiritual and
katriyas as authorities temporal, there may seem to be little room for conflict: after all, the
spheres of their influence are distinct. In the formulation of the Mahbhrata, the ideal
situation where Brahmins and katriyas do not conflict with each other is apparent. A
Brahmin cannot do the work of a Katriya (or of a vaiya, or dra for that matter): A
Brahmin who performs the actions of katriyas, vaiyas, or dras is despised as a dimwit
in this world, and in the next world he goes down to hell (MBh 12.62.1-5). There are many
restrictions on the sources of income for Brahmins ([a Brahmin] should avoid the menial
service of a king, wealth from agriculture, and living by commerceand usury MBh
12.63.1-5), and leaving them thus dependent on the gifts of others and of the support of
kings would have prevented them from gaining too much influence over society. Moreover,
kings are able to exert some authority over Brahmins: any Brahmin doing anything else

3
Hacker p. 483
[other than following the Law of the Vedas and the four Life-Patterns] should be killed with
a sword like a dra As with dogs, so with Brahmins: ones basic character is manifested
through ones actions (MBh 12.65.5-10). But, just as Brahmins were subject to katriyas
temporal authority, katriyas themselves were subject to Brahmins religious authority. As
the only class permitted to officiate at sacrifices, Brahmins did have a monopoly of sorts
over religion. Given the centrality of the Vedas, Vedic learning and sacrifices to society as a
whole, kings could not rule independently of Brahmins.

The nature of the dharma of katriyas and Brahmins also imposed restrictions on their
conduct in relation to citizens in general, irrespective of class. The general, normative laws
of dharma prevent unjustified killing and exploitation, and, above all things, it was not in
kings interests to abuse their subjects: kings vicariously assimilate good karman from the
virtuous conduct of their subjects (MBh 12.66.25: where the strictly virtuous men of
society are protected those men who are conversant with Law and do their Lawful Deeds
the king in that kingdom receives a quarter portion [of dharma]).

Thus, it can be said that the formulation of the Mahbhrata outlines the authority of
Brahmins and katriyas over the conduct of citizens without laying the foundations for
exploitation and unbridled hegemony. Splitting religion and state, so to speak, was
farsighted in that it prevented total power from aggregating in one classs interests.
Moreover, the nature of dharma, be that the general dharma that bound citizens together or
the dharma particular to certain classes, simultaneously accepted the superiority of kings
(katriyas) and Brahmins and their responsibility for the well-being of their subjects. The
relationship between dharmic conduct and the transcendent realm meant that acting
against the principles of dharma was not in the interest of any individual or class, and this
subsequently was the ultimate means in which Brahmins, katriyas, vaiyas and dras
were kept in check.



Bibliography:
Permitted and Prohibited Occupations and Life-Patterns and the Kings Responsibilities to
Enforce These, in tr. James L. Fitzgerald, Mahbhrata, The Book of Peace, Part One
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2004) 312-32. A scan is available on the OIL weblearn
page.

Paul Hacker, Dharma in Hinduism in Olivelle (ed.) Dharma: Studies in Its Semantic,
Cultural and Religious History

James Fitzgerald, Dharma in the Mahbhrata Journal of Indian Philosophy 36.5-6 (2004)
pp. 671-85.

Richard Lariviere, Dharmastra, Custom, Real Law and Apocryphal Smrtis pp. 611-27.

Albrecht Wezler, Dharma in the Veda and the Dharmastras" Dharma in the Veda and
the Dharmastras pp. 629-54.