History

[07.04.2007ರಂದು ಗೋಖಲೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಿಚಾರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 1857ರ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಸಂಗ್ರಾಮದ ನೂರೈವತ್ತನೆಯ ವರ್ಷದ ಉತ್ಸವದ ಅಂಗವಾಗಿ ಖ್ಯಾತ ಇತಿಹಾಸಕಾರರಾದ ಡಾ॥ ಕೆ. ಶ್ರೀಪತಿ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಿಯವರ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ಮಾಲಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಏರ್ಪಡಿಸಿತ್ತು. ಅವರ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸವನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀ. ಎಸ್. ಆರ್. ರಾಮಸ್ವಾಮಿಯವರು ಲಿಪೀಕರಿಸಿದ ಕೃತಿ ಇದಾಗಿದೆ.]

It is important for us to understand the concept of a ‘colony’ and ‘colonising a country’ before we dwell on the subject of ‘decolonising legal system’. The term ‘colony’ finds its root in the Latin word colonus, which referred to ‘a farmer’ or ‘a husbandman’, who would hold his own land as a tenant for a money payment. The person who lent money to the farmer would partake the character of a landlord until the money was repaid by the farmer. Thus, the concept of becoming a debtor in one’s own land was often referred to as being colonised.

Mahmud returned again in 1020–21 CE, to punish Chandella legend Vidyadhara. On the way, Shahi Trilochanapala opposed him on the banks of the Yamuna. He was defeated again and was on his way to join Vidyadhara when he is known to have been killed. Thus, the great Shahi Trilochanapala died in 1021 CE.[1] Although Mahmud advanced to meet Vidyadhara, neither Mahmud nor Vidyadhara seem to have taken the initiative to fight and instead returned to their capitals after a show of strength.

His younger contemporary, Abhinavagupta, of Kashmir, is a giant in every sense of the word. By his own admission, he was not short of guidance, and it shows in his works. In his commentaries, he fondly mentions two of his Gurus: Bhaṭṭatauta, who taught him Nāṭya-śāstra,[1] and Bhaṭṭendurāja, who taught him Dhvanyāloka.[2] Both were from Kashmir and, by Abhinavagupta’s own description, were masters of Aesthetics.

Tenth Century CE

It is during the time of Jayapida that we see the next stage of evolution of Alaṅkāra-śāstra. It was led by two scholars in his court, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana, who can be considered as the successors of Bhāmaha and Daṇḍī, respectively. Udbhaṭa is known to have written a commentary called vivaraṇa on Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṅkāra, which is not available today. He is also supposed to have written a commentary on the Nāṭya-śāstra, which is also not available.

[Alaṅkāra-śāstra is often called the youngest among Indian sciences. Several factors substantiate this statement. Of them, the fact that Alaṅkāra-śāstra boarded the bus of proliferation just before invasive Islamic hordes acted as a collective contraceptive to prevent the birth of original ideas is perhaps the most important. In this series of articles, H A Vasuki juxtaposes two extreme opposites to great effect – the worst of times producing the best of results.

It’s true that the Indian tradition of Kshatra has witnessed several ups and downs and hundreds of incidents of defeats and death. In reality, our Rajas and Maharajas and other towering Kshatriya warriors, owing to their near-sightedness, misplaced generosity, and needless pride lost their respect, wealth and culture to the forces of barbarism. At times, some of these kings turned out to be selfish, narrow-minded and were fatal to Sanatana Dharma.