07-03-2007, 03:04 AM
I am still not sure what your questions really are?
If you are trying to study how laws are made by any arbitrary group of people, under unique socio-cultural pressures while still aiming for some universality, then of course, studying all different kinds of laws will be of help.
If you want to show that Anglo-Saxons have appropriated for themselves some "discoveries" in the theory of law making, then also a study of Hindu law will be useful in providing due credit to original discoverers if any.
But it would help if you clarify more. Your usage of the "Anglo-saxon" phrase with slight irritation suggested to me that you feel that this self-appropriation by anglo-saxons is too self-serving. More such illuminations the better.
Religious issues are important since when in prominence, they overrule the so called "natural law" etc. "Islamic law" is discriminatory towards non-believers and women, while "hindu-law" had caste-discrimination issues. Jain-buddhist dominated law gives much more importance to animal rights, for example.
Any law has two aspects:
<b>1. Eternal/universal aspect: In hinduism this is called the "sanAtana-dharma". </b>
Here those ethical/legal issues can be present that apply in a universal way. Such strictures against murder, theft, lying etc.
<b>2. Epochal/local aspect. In hinduism this would be "yuga-dharma".</b>
Manu-smriti etc would fall under yuga-dharma.
Unfortunately for India, the hindu law got frozen in time due to Islamic invasions and British rule. It hasn't had the freedom to evolve with the times. The Anglo-Saxon law on the other hand has had a heavy dose of "modernism" because the atmosphere was ripe for it. So if you look at dharma-shastra-s like manu-smriti then one may complain that they are not modern enough. For a fair comparision compare Manu-smriti with Bible or Quran.
Modern Indian criminal law is of british origin, but has separate personal laws for hindus, muslims etc that derive from ancient hindu law and Islamic law respectively.
If you are trying to study how laws are made by any arbitrary group of people, under unique socio-cultural pressures while still aiming for some universality, then of course, studying all different kinds of laws will be of help.
If you want to show that Anglo-Saxons have appropriated for themselves some "discoveries" in the theory of law making, then also a study of Hindu law will be useful in providing due credit to original discoverers if any.
But it would help if you clarify more. Your usage of the "Anglo-saxon" phrase with slight irritation suggested to me that you feel that this self-appropriation by anglo-saxons is too self-serving. More such illuminations the better.
Religious issues are important since when in prominence, they overrule the so called "natural law" etc. "Islamic law" is discriminatory towards non-believers and women, while "hindu-law" had caste-discrimination issues. Jain-buddhist dominated law gives much more importance to animal rights, for example.
Any law has two aspects:
<b>1. Eternal/universal aspect: In hinduism this is called the "sanAtana-dharma". </b>
Here those ethical/legal issues can be present that apply in a universal way. Such strictures against murder, theft, lying etc.
<b>2. Epochal/local aspect. In hinduism this would be "yuga-dharma".</b>
Manu-smriti etc would fall under yuga-dharma.
Unfortunately for India, the hindu law got frozen in time due to Islamic invasions and British rule. It hasn't had the freedom to evolve with the times. The Anglo-Saxon law on the other hand has had a heavy dose of "modernism" because the atmosphere was ripe for it. So if you look at dharma-shastra-s like manu-smriti then one may complain that they are not modern enough. For a fair comparision compare Manu-smriti with Bible or Quran.
Modern Indian criminal law is of british origin, but has separate personal laws for hindus, muslims etc that derive from ancient hindu law and Islamic law respectively.