....Previous

All these Mimamsa rules of the interpretation are of great importance. They reflect the deep insight of the ancient Indian thinkers as well as importance of those rules in the development of methodological hermeneutics. The Mimamsakas were aware of the need of such rules for interpreting not only words and sentences but also of the entire text and relevant actions. Though I am interested in all such principles of interpretation, in the context of the present paper, I shall mainly discuss some of the principles, which have impact on and relevance to Hindu jurisprudence specially.

Jurisprudence is a subject where there is ample scope for interpretation. This is true for jurisprudence in general. We know that the famous Code of Justinian, formulated in AD 533, has received various interpretations in different ages. In his Treatise Concerning the Interpretation of Laws, published in 1463, Constantius Rogerius collected these various interpretations of the Justanian’s Code. I mention this only to point out that Hindu Jurisprudence discussed and implemented similar principles of interpretation at a much earlier date. Moreover, the rules of interpretation, though necessary in the legal system of all countries, have some special importance in the case of Hindu jurisprudence. This is particularly because, is not man-made or king-made. It is contained in the revealed texts which are often cryptic and obscure. Hence, in the case of such laws or injunctions, systematic interpretation through method or maxims is absolutely necessary. In this paper I would like to recapitulate the great contribution made by the Mimamsa system in this field.

Before going into the details of such Mimamsa principles of interpretation it is necessary to say something about the controversy regarding the scope of such principles. There is an ongoing debate among the scholars on Dharmasastras regarding the applicability of these Mimamsa rules of interpretation in the field of Hindu law. Some of the writers are of the view that Mimamsa maxims are specially meant for textual interpretation, i.e., the interpretation of texts and sentences of the Sruti and other sacred texts and their injunctions and as such they are not applicable to secular civil laws. They maintain a rigid distinction between dharma and vyavahara and think that being concerned with dharma, Mimamsa principles have no usefulness in the field of vyavahara. Quoting from Visvarupa’s commentary on Yajnavalkya Smrti R.C. Hazra maintains that “neither in Jaimini’s work nor in the commentaries on the same written by Sabara, Kumarila and others, there is any statement which may show definitely that by Dharma, the Mimamsakas meant the acts of vyavahara also.”¹³ Here I would like to mention that Hazra himself cites some examples from Purva Mimamsa Sutras, e.g., VI 1, 12-16 and VI 7, 1-17, where Jaimini is found to discuss questions relating to a wife’s right to property and sacrificer’s limitation in giving away or alienating all his property (sva) at the Visvajit sacrifice. Curiously enough, Hazra regards these citations as ‘merely secondary’.

Such views regarding the non-applicability of the Mimamsa rules of interpretation in the cases of Hindu law have been strongly refuted by many reputed scholars and lawyers like A.B. Keith, Pashupatinath Shastri, K.L. Sarkar, Ganganath Jha, Surendranath Dasgupta among others. Here I may mention briefly the main points of their arguments, which will be supplemented by my own ideas on this issue.

While discussing the Mimamsa rules of interpretation and its scope, it has been rightly pointed out that a rule is always a rule. It will govern a case which comes within its purview, no matter whether it is a question of sacred or civil law. Just as the rules of grammar if applied to a literary work does not lose their force, rather gain efficacy, similarly the rules of interpretation which are applicable to the Sruti texts, can become more important if applied in the cases of  Smrti law. Besides, that such Smrti laws are presumed to follow entirely from the Vedas has been shown by Pashupatinath Sastri who holds: “According to the orthodox theory, all texts of the Smrtis had corresponding texts in the Vedas, man of which are now lost. …The Smrtis are regarded as an offshoot of the Vedas. Hence the Mimamsa rules which are applied to the Vedic texts are also equally applicable to the Smrti texts.”¹⁴

Another interesting argument has been offered by Ganganath Jha, who holds that the Mimamsa rules of interpretation are for universal application, useful wherever texts have to be interpreted. Yet the commentators have mainly referred to the texts bearing upon sacrifices, for in those ages “sacrifices formed the most important factor in the life of the Hindu. Naturally, therefore, the performance of those appeared to them to be the most familiar instances with which to illustrate the rules of interpretation. A clear study of Sanskrit literature will however reveal the fact that the rules have been drawn upon to elucidate knotty points in other branches of study and investigation also, notably so in the domain of legal studies, and naturally so, because the Law of the Hindus is based, directly or indirectly, on scriptural texts and the interpretation of these texts had to be done through the Rules of Interpretation evolved in the Mimamsa-Sutras.”¹⁵

Next..