Traditional "Daṇḍa" (Sanskrit: दण्ड, literally 'stick', 'staff', or 'rod', an ancient symbol of authority)[1] is the Hindu term for punishment.
In ancient India, the ruler generally sanctioned punishments but other legal officials could also play a part.
An offender punished with death, banishment, imprisonment or mutilation permanently or temporarily prevents them from being able to repeat an offence.
[4] One purpose for punishment is to prevent or discourage the commission of crimes or unlawful behaviour through deterrence.
According to the Mahabharata, people only engage in their lawful activities for fear of punishment by the king, in the afterlife, or from others.
Manu recommends the king place prisons near a high road where the "suffering and disfigured" offenders could be clearly seen, making imprisonment both deterrent and preventative.
Lawbreakers should be punished in a way that improves their character and conduct, and places the offender on the correct path.
[6] The king played a major role in the punishment of his subjects and his duty is discussed in the Manusmrti (Code of Manu).
Manu recommends the King consider the circumstances of the crime and of the offender's ability to bear a penalty.
[7] Although the king could not make a decision without the advice of others, he was able to initiate investigations and administer punishment for certain criminal offences.
When there was a conflict within a corporate group that could not be resolved, the king was able to intervene and rectify the situation with the administration of his own punishment.
[2]: 132–133 The king was in charge of punishment, and was designated to correct human vices and restrain them to lead them to a fulfilling life.
These texts were written to describe the ideal behaviour of members of society, and even encompass the method by which one would urinate or defecate.
This is an indication the authors of the texts knew members of society were not following what had been written and decided to revise the original contents.
In the Daṇḍaviveka, Vardhamāna outlines eleven factors affecting the severity of the punishment that will be meted out; according to it: The caste (of the offender, Contrary to popular belief, the reality is that the punishment for a Brahmin criminal was 64 times more than that of a Shudra criminal.
Both admonition and censure are the lowest and least-severe of the possible punishments because neither inflict physical pain or loss of property.
In the ancient Hindu tradition, it was generally accepted if a Kshatriya, a Vaishya, or a Shudra was not able to pay the fine, the offender was made to perform manual labour.
[3]: 158 People who received stolen property "had to be put in iron fetters, kept on a lean diet, and made to do manual labour for the King till their death".
There were eight main sites of mutilation: the organ, the belly, the tongue, the hands, the feet, the eye, the nose and the ears.
[3]: 163–164 Under the Indian Penal Code, the death penalty is reserved for the gravest offences: these are waging war against the Government of India, encouraging a mutiny that is carried out; giving false evidence that results in the conviction, sentencing to death and execution of a person; murder under the notion of an eye for an eye; encouraging the suicide of a minor, an insane person or a person who is intoxicated; attempting to murder when harm is caused; and committing murder during a robbery by a gang.
[citation needed] As of 2023[update], attempts are made to find mitigating and extenuating factors so the lesser punishment is inflicted.
[citation needed] There are some main differences between the ancient and the modern Indian law with respect to the death penalty.
There were numerous ways to inflict the death penalty, unlike modern India which uses hanging for executions.
Whipping and the other forms of corporal punishment would only be inflicted if admonition, censure and fines had failed to reform the offender.
If a man, who belonged to a corporation situated in a village broke an agreement due to greed, his punishment would be banishment.
If an able person was to sit idly by as a "village is being plundered, a dyke is being destroyed, or a highway robbery committed"[3]: 172 would be banished with his or her belongings.
In ancient India, there were seven kinds of crimes that warranted confiscation of property; these were officials who accepted money from suitors with poor intentions, Shudras who had sexual intercourse with a woman of a higher caste, Vaishyas who had sexual intercourse with a Brahmin, traders who exported goods over which the king had a monopoly or whose export was forbidden, and officials who were supposed to administer public affairs but were corrupted by wealth and had disrupted the business of another.
In most cases, these councils had some relationship with the king but were able to remain autonomous Rather than dealing primarily with disagreements that were already underway, Brahmin institutions worked with questions about the law.
According to the historical records of legal practice in ancient India, the lawmaking activities of numerous corporate groups was quite prevalent.
As people can know someone's past sins by whether they were born blind or diseased, it is also known someone was punished by the state if they are missing a limb.