26 Dyūtasamāhvaya

CHAPTER xxvi

DYŪTASAMĀHVAYA

(Gambling and prize-fighting ) Manu IX. 223, Nār. XIX. 1 and Bṛ. (8. B. E. 33 p. 385 verse 3) define dyūta (gambling ) as that sport which is carried on with inanimate objects such as dice, pieces of leather, ivory and the like and in which there is a stake, while sport carried on with animate objects such as cocks, pigeons, rams, buffaloes and wrestlers is called samāhvaya. The attitude of Manu towards gambling was uncompromising. Manu (IX, 221-222, 224-226) calls upon the king to suppress gambling and prize-fighting in his country as they cause the destruction of the State; he states that gambling is open theft and therefore the king should endeavour to put it down and that the king should punish with corporal punishment all those who engage in gambling or who induce or help others to gamble, and that he should banish gamblers from the city because gamblers residing in the country harags wellconducted subjects by their deceitful tricks. Manu IX. 227 ( = Udyogaparva 37. 19) states that in ancient times gambling engendered great enmities and therefore a wise man should not resort to it even for amusement or in jest. Kāt. (934) is to the same effect. Yāj. II. 203 and Kaut. III. 20 994 allowed gambling in a central place under State supervision as it led to the detection of thieves. Br. 995 ( S. B. E. 33 p. 385 verse 1) refers to this divergence of viows: * Gam bling that causes loss of truth, purity and wealth was forbid den by Manu, but others allowed it because it led to the detec tion of thieves, provided it was carried on in the presence of a master of the gambling hall and provided it yielded revenue to the king’. The person who was in charge of the

994, TAPI TETONARTUTTI I UTH. II. 203 ; gaat quand program forumo apareguit qua: taraframe w III. 20; W* ORTERE for fan artea I HATIT forte fara o P T I 1797. g. by f. t. p. 611.

  1. Har prentararaisport T rakra i firm a n TUI TE. 4. by far. II. p. 331, por p. 805, A. r. 611-612.

HII )

Royal control over gambling

539

gambling hall which gamblers made their haunt and who sup plied the dice and other instruments of gambling was called sabhika and the stake or money agreed to be paid by the defeated gambler to the winning gambler was called pana or glaha ( Yaj. II. 199). Nār. XIX. 8 provides an optional method viz. instead 996 of gambling in a hall presided over by a sabhika, gamblers may give the king his share in the stakes, then indulge in gambling openly and if they do so they incur no punishment. Acc. to Yāj. II. 199 as interpreted by Par. M. IIL p. 574 and V. P. p. 565 the sabhika was to receive five per cent or oth part when the stake was 100 panas or more and 10 per cent or ith when the stake was less than 100 panas. Aparārka (p. 802) explains that the sabhika was to receive as his fee five per cent from the victorious gambler and ten per cent from the losing gambler. Nār. XIX. 2 prescri bes a flat rate of ten per cent on the stake as the fee of the sabhika, while Kauç.997 III. 20 lays down the fee as five per cent and allows the sabhika to charge hire for supplying gam bling accessories (such as dice, leather pieces) and for sup plying water and accommodation. The sabhika receiving protec tion from the king was to pay to the king the tax agreed upon by him, was to recover from the defeated gambler the stake (by means of confinement or restraint order ) and pay it over to the victor and was to be honest and forbearing 998 ( Yāj. II. 200, Kāt. 940, Nār. XIX. 2). Kāt. (937) states that the sabhika 999 may give to the winner the money won out of his own pocket and may recover from the losing gambler within three fort nights or at once if there is fear of losing the money, Kāt. (935) 1000 holds that if gambling was to be allowed it must be carried on openly with an arch constructed near the door in order that respectable people might not be misled ( about its real nature ) and it should yield revenue to the king. If the sabhika is

  1. अथवा कितवा राक्षेवरचा भागं यथोदितम् । प्रकाश देवनं कुरेवं दोषो न विद्यते। XIX. 8.

  2. जितदण्यादण्यक्षः पाक शतमावदीत काकण्यक्षारलाशलाकापक्रयमुदकभूमि WAT i srūn III. 20..

  3. प्रसव वापयरेयं तस्मिन्स्थामे न चान्यथा । जितं वै समिकस्तत्र सभिकप्रत्यया *9# FETT. 940 q. by spare p. 804, F. t. p. 615.

  4. Formentera Frame and

f i pateformer forang # # 7697. 937 q. by art p. 803, 911. #. III 375, f. 5. 612.

· 1000. T rafuation signarafunt 91191. 935 g. by fat. T. p. 611, …. .. .. ..

540

(Vol.

unable to make the defeated gambler pay the stake to the victor, the king would make the former pay to the latter provided the gambling was done openly in the presence of the sabhika and a group of gamblers and the king’s dues were paid by the sabhika, but not otherwise ( Yāj II. 201 ). Nār. XIX. 6-7 and Yaj. II. 202 provide that when gambling is carried on secretly and without the king’s permission or with false dice or other deceitful tricks, the gamblers and the sabhika would not be able to gain their object (i. e. recovering bets won or the fee ) and would be liable to punishment, viz. branding on the head ( with dog’s foot and the like ) and banishment. Nār. XIX. 6 adds that the banished gamblers would have wreaths of dice tied round their necks. Kāt. (941) and Br. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 7) state that a person ignorant of gambling should, if defeated in gambling in private, be released from his liability, but one who is an adept in gambling should not be relieved when defeated; but oven an adept in gambling if he has lost the whole of his wealth as a stake should not be made to pay the whole. 1001 In disputes among gamblers, in deciding on victory or in the matter of gain to the winner, and as regards the question of false dice the keeper of the gaming house, if honest, is the final authority 1002 (Kat. 942). Nār. XIX. 4, Yaj. II, 202, Br. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 6 ), Kāt. (943) provide that when there is a dispute as to success or defeat the king should appoint gamblers to decide the dispute and gamblers will also be the witnesses in such a dispute ( in spite of the rule stated above on p. 335 that gamblers are not competent witnesses ), but if the gamblers are alleged to be inimical to the disputants the king may then 1003 himself decide the matter. Yāj. II. 203 extends all the rules about gambling to samāhvaya. Bp. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 4 ) notes that the stake is to be paid by the owner of the animal that is defeated. 1004 The $. V. (p. 487) quotes a text of Viṣṇu and a ( Bharuci’s ? ) gloss

  1. अनभिज्ञो जितो मोच्योऽमोध्योऽभिज्ञो जितो रहः। सर्वस्वपि जिसेऽभिटेन सर्वस्व प्रदापयेत् । काल्या. ; हो जितोऽनभिज्ञश्च कटाक्षः कपटेन मा । मोभ्योऽभिज्ञोपि सर्वस्वं जितं सर्व न दाप्यते :: both q. by अपरार्क p. 804 and वि. र. p. 616. दीपकलिका on या. 11. 200 cites that fit etc.

  2. Presu TH Frot afara i saret fingrarna fant are u 7741. 942 g. by waren p. 804, ft. I. p. 617.

  3. उभयोरपि सन्दिग्धौ कितवाः स्थापरीक्षकाः । यदा विद्वेषिणस तु तदा राजा E # Tr. q. by spare p. 804, 947. 77. III. p. 576, f. F. p. 618.

  4. a TRETIRA I TRIFART Pop! Try ft Feuer: # . q. by ft. p. 614, # . p. 486. ,

F

III

Rules about prize-fighting

541

thereon that the king gets one-fourth of the stake from each of the owners of the fighting animals and that the animal that is defeated (except a wrestler or a buffalo ) is to be made over, whether living or dead, to the owner of the winner. The Mānasollāsa (vol. III. p. 229) contains an elaborate description of a king’s amusenients’ by way of wrestling matches, cock fights &c. The Dasakumāracarita makes frequent reference to gambling. In Ucchvāsa II. (p. 47) we are told that there are 25 kalās on which gambling depends, that legal proceedings between gamblers were decided by reliance on the sabhika and that out of a stake of 16000 dināras, the successful gambler took half and distributed the other half among the sabhika and the denizens of the gambling hall.

Gambling is one of the most ancient vices. Rg. X. 34 is a hymn which contains the lament of a gambler. Elsewhere also in the Rg. gambling is referred to. Vide Rg. I. 41. 9 ( ex plained in Nirukta III. 16 ), VII. 86. 6 ( where it is said that dice made of Vibhidaka tree are one of the sources of sin), Rg. X. 42. 9, X. 43. 5. In the Atharvaveda algo dice and glaha occur frequently. Vide Atharva IV. 16. 5, IV, 38 (a hymn for good luck in gambling). In Vāj. S. 30. 18 we have the words ‘akṣarājāya kitavam’. In certain solemn sacrifices like the Rājasūya dice play was an important item. Vide H. of Dh, vol. II. p. 1219. Pāṇini teaches the formation of many words relating to gambling. In II. 1005 1. 10 he teaches the formation of Avyayibhāva compounds like ‘akṣapari’ or

salākāpari’ in the sense that loss was caused by one dice being cast in a way different from the way in which it was cast in a prior game’. In IV. 4. 2 he teaches that ‘akṣika’ means one who uses dice in gambling or wins by using 1006 dice and in IV, 4. 19 he states that ‘akṣadyūtika ‘1007 means ‘( enmity ) brought about by using dice in gambling’. Vide also Pān. II. 3, 57-58. Ap. Dh. S. II. 1008 10. 25. 12-13 prescribe that in the

  1. TOFTHET: Aftop i arfo II. 1. 10, on which the pur 164 quotes a कारिका ‘अक्षादयस्तृतीयान्ताः पूर्वोक्तस्य यथा न तत् । कितवष्यवहारे च एकत्वेऽक्ष STUTTE # “.

  2. A fiata F FAITE i mora IV. 4. 2; teftator वा आक्षिका

  3. Fightshantera morran IV. 4. 19; w ita agrarum

  4. **Trasforum TUVArraiata TUTURISTf: gu: arahat effort: Fy: 1 3474. u. II. 10. 25. 12–13. ……542

History of Dharmaladra

(Vol.

midst of the sabha (hall) having raised a table for playing dioe one should place thereon dice even in number and made from the vibhitaka wood and that players should be men of the three higher castes, pure and devoted to truth. In the Maha bharata Yudhisthira 1009 is made to say that it was his vow not to refuse dice play when he was oballenged to it. It was well known that gambling affects the minds even of the good, while in the case of those who were not ordinarily good it led to dis sensions and calamities. Many modern people Justify the action of Yudhisthira on the ground that the code of ksatriya chivalry and morality of those ancient days required that he should not be afraid to play with dice when challenged by an adversary. Conceding for the sake of argument that indulgence in gambling even on the part of such a virtuous, noble and philosophic warrior as Yudhisthira was justified or at least excusable, there is nothing to show that the code of ksatriya chivalry permitted him to gamble away his own spirited, devoted and virtuous queen and his four valiant brothers. It appears that the real aim of the great author of the Mahabharata is to emphasize that gambling is such a reprehensible pastime’ and so ruinous and degrading that even the greatest and the best, when once they indulge in it, lose all sense of duty, morality and of the claims of love and affection. It has already been seen how gambling was looked upon as a great vice in the king by writers on politics and also on dharmasastra. Even the Purāṇas here and there condemn gambling. For example, the Brahma purāṇa (171. 29–38 ) condemns it in strong language. It says. that the gambler’s wife is always in distress and the gambler on seeing the condition of his wife is also worried ( this is in almost the same words as Rg. X. 34. 10-11’), that the Veda condemns gambling and that there is no sin comparable to ganıbling.

  1. Bror orientera *****## #wroof 58. 16; प्रत सदानांश सतां मतिविनाशनम् । असता तब जापते भेवाच पसनानि vor 128. 6. ……. .. . .. .;

।