McqkartGet appPractise

The use of the term dharma for law, nevertheless, was neither universal nor inevitable. This is borne out by the first century C.E.

author Kautilya's compendium Treatise on Politics (Arthaśāstra). The significance of Kautilya's work for the history of law in India rests primarily on the fact that it provides a different and in many respects unique lens into that history.

His treatise belongs to a distinct scholarly tradition with social and political priorities different from those represented by the science of dharma (dharmaśāstra), the primary discipline devoted to jurisprudential reflection within the Brahmanical scholastic tradition. Kautilya makes no attempt to reduce the variety of laws within society into the single category of dharma. Indeed, we do not find a single comprehensive term within the Treatise on Politics to refer to law as such, or even to the broad areas of religious and secular norms covered by the term dharma within the discourse of the science of dharma.

What is clear, however, is that Kautilya, both formally and in obiter dicta, argues for the plurality of law; law is not one but multiple. Although his text is later than the earliest documents of the science of dharma, it nevertheless taps into an alternate intellectual history that probably ran parallel to the one represented by the science of dharma.

In simple terms, the first line of the given passage means:

AThere was nothing unavoidable or locally acceptable about the use of the word 'law' for 'dharma', anyway.
BThere was nothing inevitable or meaningful about the use of the word 'dharma' for law, anyway.
CThere was nothing unavoidable or globally acceptable about the use of the word 'dharma' for 'law', anyway. ✓ Correct
DThere was nothing permanent or unavoidable about the use of the word 'dharma' for law, anyway.
Correct answer: (C) There was nothing unavoidable or globally acceptable about the use of the word 'dharma' for 'law', anyway.
Explanation

The opening line says that using the term dharma for law was neither universal nor inevitable. Universal means globally or generally accepted and inevitable means unavoidable, so the line means there was nothing unavoidable or globally acceptable about using the word dharma for law. Option 3 captures both ideas correctly, while the others swap the words or change the meaning.

Want more like this? Create a free account to practise a full test, track your progress, and get spaced-repetition review.

Practise on Mcqkart →🎓 Book an expert →