From Ancient Ayodhya to Our Future
What do you want to be when you grow up? Doctor/Engineer/Cricketer/AFL player/Mc.D burger joint staff/Astronaut/etc? Wonderful. A doctor. An engineer. A teacher. Perhaps someone wants to start a business, or play cricket for Australia, or create art that moves people.
Now let me ask you something deeper: What makes it possible for you to become any of these things? Discipline, Hard+Smart work, Good health, Good friendship, etc?
There is something underneath all of that – something invisible but sustains the peace in civil society to make all our dreams worth dreaming and maybe even taking a shot at.
It is the law. Laws that bind, protect, defend and sometimes even a useful tool to attack when we need to preserve our work and identity. Laws that say we can’t be punished for a mistake/crime we didn’t commit, laws and their implementation that fend away mischief-mongers; and importantly laws that didn’t exist yesterday but seem necessary today and into the future.
Without the protection offered by laws, no doctor can practice freely, no engineer can design freely, no business owner can plan or sustain a venture, no teacher can speak the truth, and no artist can freely tell stories of any space or object beyond the everyday objects surrounding them.
I want to trace where these protections came from; a thread of justice stretching back into the roots of human creation and civilisation – and why every generation must hold it firm for the future. There are references to archeologically verified artefacts and I draw parallels to them from Manu Smriti which was taught in the oral tradition(Smriti) for many cyclic repetitions of time(Yuga).
Early Foundations — Babylon, Athens, Ayodhya
Four thousand years ago, in ancient Sumer, King Ur-Nammu inscribed the world’s oldest surviving written law code. His prologue declared that the orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow not delivered to the mighty.
the orphan did not fall a prey to the wealthy, the widow did not fall a prey to the powerful, the man of one shekel did not fall a prey to the man of sixty shekels” (Kramer, 54).
At a time of wars fought by men and fixed gender roles, a slain soldier’s family always had to worry about their future and self-respect. In such a setting, Ur-Nammu’s law, protected the weak from exploitation by the strong; helping to build sustained society with traditions and independent identities.
The Manu Smriti records the teachings of Svayambhuva Manu from the Satya Yuga — the age of truth at the beginning of creation. These principles of governance, including the warning that without the king’s justice ‘the stronger would roast the weaker like fish on a spit,'(Manusmriti Verse 7.20) were transmitted through the ages and codified in the text we have today.
Three centuries after Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi of Babylon created his famous code. He too claimed divine mandate “to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.” And crucially, his code established the presumption of innocence — the first laws punished those who made accusations they could not prove.
Here again, the Manu Smriti records many important aspects of civil law Manusmriti Law (Civil and Criminal) [Discourse VIII]. Important parallels are the sections 8.59: Punishment for false claims, 8.117-8.120: Punishment for false witness and perjury, 8.32: False claims about lost property and most notably what Hammurabi codified as the due-process was known in 8.126-8.130: Due process and consideration of circumstances.
In Athens, around 620 BCE, Draco wrote the first Greek legal code, replacing arbitrary aristocratic interpretation with written, public law. His laws were harsh — giving us the word “draconian” — but they were generally known. Citizens could read them and conform their conduct to them. This was a very necessary and early departure from the previous systems where knowledge of the law (Shastras) was known only to one class of society who based on their integrity and allegiance could unfortunately mis-interpret the laws in favour of the strong and powerful.
Regarding the Manu Smriti, The restrictions often cited — about Shudras not being permitted to study — pertain specifically to Vedic mantras and rituals, not to knowledge of law and governance.
On Manusmriti verse 4.80, where the phrase “na śūdrāya matiṃ dadyāt” appears, the word ‘mati’ points to some kind of knowledge, which is taken to mean variously as Nītiśāstra and Vedārthajñāna (knowledge of the meaning of Vedas) by various ancient commentators. But 10th century Vedic commentator Medhatithi points out such restriction only existed for professional roles and not where the Dharma Shastras were freely accessible to the public for their own knowledge and empowerment.
A temporary detour regarding Manu Smriti
Unlike Vedas, which are called shruti, that which is heard, and considered timeless divine revelations, Manusmriti or Manava-dharma-shastra, is a smriti (that which is recollected): the work of man, subject to change with time (kala), place (sthan) and participants (patra). It was also derived by combining the knowledge in the Artha Shastra and Dharma Shastra. So, the “work of man, subject to change” is an important note to reflect on. While this can be misinterpreted for the scripture itself as seemingly illegitimate, the concept of mutable and acceptable law was established in early civilisations through this mechanism. Other similar well-known implementations are the Halakha and Canon law.
Consent and Justice…. Public shaping the law
A generation after Draco, Solon reformed the old laws. When asked if his laws were the best possible, he gave a profound answer: “They were the best the Athenians would accept.” Law is not merely what rulers decree — it is what a people will live under. Consent and justice must meet.
Ayodhya – Rama Rajya and Raja Dharma
In ancient Ayodhya, the Ramayana — which is Itihasa, history, not mythology — documents a sophisticated constitutional order. King Rama, though divine, submitted entirely to Dharma. When his brothers Bharata and Shatrughna governed as regents during Rama’s exile, they faced a case where sympathy and mercy seemed appropriate. But they had to adhere to existing law without relying on interpretations; recognising that as regents, not sovereigns, they had authority to administer law but not to remake it or extract a relevant interpretation.
That precedent later bound Rama himself. After returning from the 14 years of exile, the victory over Ravana and return of Sita culminating in Deepavali and Pattabhisheka, the King was bound to law in the tragic matter of Sita’s exile. The king could not claim exception from laws his own brothers had upheld. In Rama Rajya, the ruler is more bound by law than ordinary citizens, not less.
The Principles That Emerged
From Babylon to Athens to Ayodhya, the same principles emerged independently:
- Law must be written and public, so citizens can know it and conform to it.
- The accuser bears the burden of proof. You are innocent until proven guilty.
- Law applies prospectively. You cannot be punished for conduct that was legal or wasn’t regulated at the time of doing.
- Rulers are subject to law, not above it.
These principles flowed into the Roman Twelve Tables, into the Magna Carta of 1215 when English barons forced King John to acknowledge that even monarchs are bound by “the law of the land,” and eventually into the Indian Constitution, which Dr. Ambedkar and the framers designed to embody both Western parliamentary traditions and India’s own ancient Dharmic heritage. Mahatma Gandhi understood this. He said Rama Rajya meant “true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice.” He was pointing to historical precedent — reminding us that constitutional democracy is not a Western import but a recovery of civilisational achievement.
The Thread Under Strain
But principles that took millennia to establish can erode quickly.
Australia’s Parliament was debating the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. The stated purpose is to combat hatred — a worthy goal. But legal scholars across the spectrum have raised concerns about how the law is written.
The bill reverses the burden of proof. Instead of the prosecution proving wrongdoing, the accused must demonstrate they had a “legitimate purpose.” This inverts the principle Hammurabi established four thousand years ago.
The bill permits retroactive application. Conduct that was legal when it occurred can become criminal after the fact. This violates the principle that law must be known in advance.
The bill allows a minister to designate “prohibited groups” without hearings or due process. This returns us to the pre-Draconian world where law was whatever those in power said it was.
Even the Human Rights Law Centre — not a conservative organisation — warns that “we cannot arrest our way to social cohesion.” Even Jewish organisations ostensibly protected by the law have cautioned that criminalisation “treats racism as an individual pathology to be punished rather than a systemic problem that must be prevented through education.” Remember Solon’s wisdom: “The laws are the best that the citizens would accept.” If Australians accept laws that reverse the burden of proof and punish yesterday’s legal conduct, it is because we have forgotten what those protections cost our ancestors to establish.
If Australians accept laws that reverse the burden of proof and punish yesterday’s legal conduct, it is because we have forgotten what those protections cost our ancestors to establish.
The Shield You Must Hold
Let me return to the young people – the future doctors, engineers, teachers, artists, and leaders.
In 480 BCE, at the narrow pass of Thermopylae, King Leonidas of Sparta stood with 300 warriors against the vast Persian army of Xerxes – over 100,000 strong. When a Persian envoy warned that their archers were so numerous that their arrows would blot out the sun, a Spartan warrior replied: “Good — then we shall fight in the shade.”
On the first day of the Battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes launched a barrage of arrows that did no damage to the Greeks, who were well-protected by their armor, shields, and bronze helms. The Greeks fought in phalanx formation. With their shields overlapping, they presented an almost impenetrable wall. Each soldier coordinated with the others to present an impenetrable shield wall. Arrows simply bounced off the heavy Spartan shields.
For three days, 300 shields held against the arrows of an empire.
The constitutional principles I have described today are that shield wall. The presumption of innocence – established by Manu in the Satya Yuga and by Hammurabi in Babylon — shields you from accusation without proof. The requirement that law be known in advance – from Draco’s written code to the Twelve Tables – shields you from punishment for conduct that was legal yesterday. The principle that rulers are bound by law — from Rama’s submission to Dharma to the Magna Carta – shields you from arbitrary power.
Each principle is a shield. Alone, it can be broken. But held together, overlapping, coordinated – they form an impenetrable wall against tyranny.
The Spartans fell at Thermopylae -not because their shields failed, but because a traitor named Ephialtes showed Xerxes a hidden path around the pass. The wall was betrayed from within.
Constitutional principles fall the same way. Not by frontal assault – tyrants rarely announce themselves; but by citizens who accept small erosions. A burden of proof reversed here. A retroactive application there. An administrative power granted without hearing. Each erosion is a path around the shield wall.
Leonidas knew they would die. He dismissed most of his allies and kept only those prepared to hold the pass to the end; buying time for Greece to prepare, to survive, to ultimately prevail at Salamis and Plataea.
You are the next generation of shield-bearers. Whatever career you choose… doctor, engineer, teacher, artist, leader; you will be a citizen. You will vote. You will speak. You will decide what laws you will accept.
The thread of justice is unbroken. From Manu’s protection of the weak, to Hammurabi’s presumption of innocence, to Rama’s submission to Dharma, to Leonidas at Thermopylae, to the Magna Carta’s constraint on kings, to the constitutions that govern us today – the thread runs through.
kskspeaking 