Scholarlink

<p>This article offers a political-theoretical reconstruction of the seventh chapter of the Manusmṛti, foregrounding its articulation of <i>Rājadharma</i> as a distinct model of political theology. It delves into the metaphysical genesis of the <i>Rājā</i>, unpacks the ontological weight of <i>Daṇḍa</i> as the absolute force of punishment and explores the moral obligations that tether the ruler to the rhythm of the cosmic order. Through a comparative analysis of Manu’s vision with the modern state’s assertion to the monopoly of legitimate violence, the article elucidates an alternative political ontology in which authority is embedded in theological and normative structures rather than juridico-political consensus. It compares the <i>Dhārmik</i> framework of governance with modern biopolitical regimes that manage life through regulatory apparatuses. Rather than conceiving punitive power as a contractual outcome grounded in popular consent—as in Hobbesian or Weberian formulations—Manu envisions kingship as a divinely instituted entity, where <i>Daṇḍa</i> operates not as coercive violence but as a sacred mechanism of moral and cosmological regulation. By unsettling the epistemic centrality of Western political categories, this comparative inquiry reorients political theory toward a pluralist grammar of governance and punishment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Theory of Kingship in the Manusmṛti: Daṇḍa, Dharma, and the Moral Responsibility of Political Power

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月11日

查看全文
  • Anoop Kumar Suraj

摘要

This article offers a political-theoretical reconstruction of the seventh chapter of the Manusmṛti, foregrounding its articulation of Rājadharma as a distinct model of political theology. It delves into the metaphysical genesis of the Rājā, unpacks the ontological weight of Daṇḍa as the absolute force of punishment and explores the moral obligations that tether the ruler to the rhythm of the cosmic order. Through a comparative analysis of Manu’s vision with the modern state’s assertion to the monopoly of legitimate violence, the article elucidates an alternative political ontology in which authority is embedded in theological and normative structures rather than juridico-political consensus. It compares the Dhārmik framework of governance with modern biopolitical regimes that manage life through regulatory apparatuses. Rather than conceiving punitive power as a contractual outcome grounded in popular consent—as in Hobbesian or Weberian formulations—Manu envisions kingship as a divinely instituted entity, where Daṇḍa operates not as coercive violence but as a sacred mechanism of moral and cosmological regulation. By unsettling the epistemic centrality of Western political categories, this comparative inquiry reorients political theory toward a pluralist grammar of governance and punishment.