Here’s a press report dt.28 Feb 2024 which makes for interesting reading
https://lawbeat.in/columns/dharma-not-truth-constitution-former-sc-judge-bats-removal-hindu-shloka
A former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Kurian Joseph, has recently stated that the Supreme Court’s motto “यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” (Where there is Dharma, there is victory) should be removed. He pointed out that Dharma, as stipulated in the Hindu fold, is not always the truth and therefore, does not deserve to be the motto of the Constitution of India. “The truth is the Constitution, Dharma – not always”.
Justice Kurien pointed out that “when all High Courts across the country have adopted the motto “Satyameva Jayate”, there is no reason why the Supreme Court has chosen to keep the Dharmic notion, which is but a set of duties”.
In a series of statements he made while speaking at an event organised by activists and a controversial website “The Wire”, Justice Joseph’s objections to the Shloka that appears in the revered epic of the Hindus, the Mahabharata are telling, especially because of his earlier comparison of the Catholic Church with the Preamble.
While pushing for the removal of the motto, the former judge who retired from the top court in 2018 said that the Chief Justice of India must consider the idea of its removal as the adoption of a Hindu shloka such as this, makes a huge difference in the approach of the Supreme Court in justice delivery.”
—— End of press report ——
Ordinarily, one would tend to ignore the observations and opinions of superannuated justices of the courts, ex-ministers, civil servants, former diplomats and politicians as mere self-indulgence in post-retirement pastimes. But since this former Chief Justice makes pronouncements on ancient Vedantic values and civilisational fundamentals, he deserves engagement intellectually.
With all due respect to the former Justice of the Supreme Court, I have to say his statement only exposes his lack of understanding of the Vedantic concepts of both Sathya and Dharma.
Justice Kurien doesn’t belong to the Vedantic “Maatha” or school of thought and so one must cut him some slack for not having the requisite knowledge of Hindu thought and way of life. He’s a Christian and the Christian way of thinking is accustomed to think always in terms of binaries and contradictions. Which is why Justice Kurien’s proposition that the two “shlokas” he refers to —- i.e. यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः and सत्यमेव जयते — is premised on a false binary. It’s a conundrum he seems to have fabricated within his mind and sold it to the legal fraternity and his ex-colleagues in the Bar and Bench, thinking it to be so very thought-provoking that it would sway them to his way of thinking. In fact, the Justice’s idea, in my view, is so very banal if examined critically,
In very simple literal translation into English, Sathya is Truth and Dharma is Righteousness. Truth and Righteousness as both logical and semantic categories are in apposition not opposition to each other. Untruth cannot be righteous and, vice versa, neither can unrighteousness ever be truth.
If Justice Kurien were to appreciate the above statement, then he would not be asking the other rather trite question : “when all High Courts across the country have adopted the motto “Satyameva Jayate” … why the Supreme Court has chosen to keep the Dharmic notion..”?
The answer, Justice Kurien, is simple : because the Supreme Court is supreme and the High Courts are high. Please do not take the answer to be facetious because, honestly, it is not. Let me explain.
Just as we all know that the High Courts of the land are all subordinate to the Supreme Court of India, it must be understood that Satyam too is no higher than Dharma. It is but a subset of it.
Justice Kurien I am sure knows the story of the very popular Shakespearean 5-Act play “The Merchant of Venice” which, in fact, is all really about Sathya, Dharma, truth and righteousness only, and about justice and punishment. The story is too well known to need recounting here but the bare outline of it is worth repeating for the edification of the Justice of the Supreme Court.
In the court in Venice, Shylock , a Jewish money-lender, demands his pound of flesh from a defaulting debtor of his, Antonio. They had entered earlier into an agreement — that Antonio mistakenly had thought was just a friendly and frivolous one — that should Antonio fail to return the loan in 3 months, Shylock would have the right to slice out a pound of Antonio’s flesh.
Antonio became bankrupt due to sudden business losses and could not repay Shylock who then dragged the matter to the Court before a Judge. Shylock had had a grudge against Antonio whom he thought was an anti-Semite.
In Court proceedings it comes to light that the agreement for the loan transaction did envisage a penalty for default and in truth it was for a pound of Antonio’s flesh. That was what we may wish to call the “Sathya” part of the story.
The lawyer for Antonio in Court pleads for Shylock to have mercy on Antonio. Another friend of Antonio also offers his own money instead which would more than pay the debt, but Shylock refuses to accept it. He wants his pound of flesh. This is precisely the point in the story where the question of Dharma arises . The agreed penalty for loan default is indeed undeniable Truth but the greater moral question is whether it is Righteous or Dharmic for Shylock to press for his pound of flesh ?
Shakespeare ends the play on a thrilling note which I’m sure Justice Kurien will recall. Antonio’s death is only prevented at the last minute in court when his clever lawyer explains the term of the loan-bond is for flesh but not for a single drop of blood. So Shylock cannot collect the pound of flesh!
Now, what is the underlying message of The Merchant of Venice that the former Supreme Court Justice must take away? It is that Dharma transcends Sathya! To grasp the profundity of the fact, scholarship steeped in Western or Abrahamic jurisprudence and/or the Constitution of India alone is not sufficient. Deep knowledge and understanding of the ancient wisdom of Indian Vedantic scripture too is required.
The verse 6.92 of Manusmiriti says,
“धृति कुशम दामो’स्त्यम् शुकम-इन्द्रिया निग्रहः।
धीर-विद्या सत्यम्-अक्रोधो दशकर्मं धर्मं लक्षमणं ”
“Dhritih kshama damo’steyam shaucham-indriya nigrahah.
Dheer-vidyaa satyam-akrodho dashakam dharma lakshanam”
Rishi Manu’s Shloka can be roughly translated as:–
“Patience, forgiveness, self-control, non-stealing, cleanliness, and purity, restraint over the senses, wisdom, knowledge, truth, and serenity are the ten attributes of dharma.”
From the Manu Smriti therefore we learn that Sathyam or Truth is an attribute of Dharma not its antithesis in any conceivable way. And a person who holds the high office in the temple of Justice must not only pursue Truth but also protect Dharma. If Sathyam and Dharmam both had not supplemented and complemented each other in the Venetian court of William Shakespeare. Shylock surely would’ve had his wish granted by the Court to carve out a pound of his flesh of his debtor.
*****************
There is another illustrative and instructive story from the Mahabharata, the great Hindu epic which is verily an encyclopaedia of dharma sastra. It also helps us to appreciate the fine complementarity between the two apposite concepts of Sathya and Dharma.
A King was plunged in a state of moral confusion about his duties towards his subjects. He sought the guidance of a guru. The guru held a ‘Dharma Danda’ (a danda is a walking stick) in his hand and the story in Mahabharata was about that Rishi- guru who hit the king’s head with his danda three times and said: “Dharmo Rakshati, Dharmo Rakshati, Dharmo Rakshati” meaning “protect, protect, protect the dharma!” It was a reminder that if the King assiduoulsy protects Dharma at all times, then Dharma in turn will protect and preserve even the Truth… all in a virtuous cycle. Which is why we see the Rishi-guru in the Mahabharata not invoking, “Sathyam rakshati, Sathyam rakshathi , Sathyam rakshathi”.
Incidentally, the “Sengkol” (in Tamizh language), that only recently was installed in the Parliament of India as “dharma danda” commemorating the Mahabharatha, is meant to symbolise Dharma, the highest of values of the civilisation called Sanatana Dharma.
Truth or Sathya cannot really triumph in a societal clime where Dharma is allowed to wither away. Dharma is the idiomatic woods while Sathyam is the metaphoric trees. It is that Dharma, Sir, which you as Hon’ble former Chief Justice of India, have chosen to describe so dismissively as “Dharmic notion, which is but a set of duties”!
Justice Kurien ought to also understand that the adage सत्यमेव जयते is actually predicated upon the other fundamental tenet of Vedantic faith यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः… and not the other way round. The founding fathers of the Constitution of India possessed enough wisdom to appreciate it and that’s the reason why they chose the latter for the Supreme Court, the apex court of India, while they selected the former for other subordinate Courts.
It is my earnest hope that Justice Kurien will now, after reading this submission of mine, be able to disabuse both himself and his large legal fraternity as well, of all the misconceptions about and the misunderstanding of ancient Vedic thought expressed in the two Shlokas he quoted.
Sudarshan Madabushi
Sudarshan is right. Former justice has misunderstanding. In the present context of sanAtana dharma discussion. It is unforyunate that former justice belonging to an alien faith wants to stor the hornet’s nest.
Well said !