From Law Student's Pen: Dharmashastra's Indigenous Ethics in the Governance for the Age of AI and Cyberspace

The rise of artificial intelligence and the vastness of cyberspace have brought human society into an age characterized by hitherto unparalleled ethical dilemmas and legal uncertainties. In the face of demands for regulatory principles that are equitable, inclusive, and morally correct, Indian jurisprudential thought enshrined in the Dharmashastra provides a civilizational foundation that is premodern to legality. This article aims to investigate the possibility of how the Dharmashastra—based on duties, moral argumentation, and cosmic equilibrium—can be utilized as a normative and philosophical framework to govern issues of modern times emanating from AI and cyberspace. It contends that the dynamic nature of Dharma as a contextual and duty-based moral order has untapped potential to direct the technological future within ethical parameters.

In a world increasingly governed by codes—not legal codes, but algorithmic ones—the imperative to have ethical foundations within the regulation of artificial intelligence and cyberspace has never been so urgent. With data breaches, algorithmic bias, surveillance capitalism, and privacy erosion, traditional legal systems appear reactive and disjointed. Against this technological maelstrom, the ancient Indian heritage of Dharmashastra appears not as a fossil from the past but as a wellspring of moral jurisprudence. In contrast to contemporary legal systems that are primarily concerned with rights and utilitarian goals, Dharmashastra turns upon Dharma—a notion that is malleable yet fundamental, moral yet juridical, transcendent yet functional.

Western techno-legal paradigms have dominated the governance of cyberspace, producing a digital infrastructure firmly rooted in Eurocentric ideals—whether through the commodification of information, the concept of individualistic privacy, or the neoliberal regulation of digital ecosystems. While these frameworks have offered a measure of normative certainty, they are also imbued with traces of colonialism: favoring surveillance over sovereignty, profit over people, and corporate domination over community justice.

The colonization of law was intellectual, not merely territorial. British legal positivism erased India’s plural legal systems by labeling them irrational and outdated. The digital laws of today, inherited from that legacy, replicate Western statutory models indifferent to local realities. Dharmashastra reclaims the indigenous knowledge system as a source of normative authority, rejecting the dichotomy of 'modern = Western'. Online, this shift facilitates regulation consonant with Indian socio-cultural values instead of adopting abstract liberal ideals.

Thus, the use of Dharmashastra as a jurisprudential framework is not merely cultural retrieval—it is a decolonial exercise in epistemic resistance. It challenges the dominant technocratic orthodoxy by offering an indigenous model of cyber-ethics and governance rooted in India’s civilizational ethos.

Dharmashastra, including texts such as the Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, and commentaries by scholars like Medhatithi and Vijnaneshwara, comprises ancient India’s classical legal and moral canon. It is not law in the positivist sense but a science of righteousness (Dharmaśāstra = the science of Dharma). It regulated not just behavior but consciousness, promoting an internalized sense of duty (swadharma) rather than external compulsion.

In contrast to Western liberal philosophy that prioritizes rights, Dharmashastra places duties first: of kings (rajadharma), of individuals (svadharma), of institutions (kuladharma), and of the cosmos (ritam). It also embraces contextualism (desha-kala-patra), making it especially flexible for a space as dynamic and unstructured as cyberspace.

Western cyberspace is shaped by the neoliberal myth of the rational, profit-seeking individual. Dharmashastra, by contrast, sees the purusha not as a consumer, but as a responsible moral agent, whose decisions impact not merely the self but the loka (world). Algorithmic frameworks and data regimes guided by Dharma would favor collective good (loka-sangraha), ethical moderation (nivritti), and self-governance (swadharma), thereby resisting the predator-like, surveillance-capitalist digital world imposed by Western tech oligopolies.

The real challenge with artificial intelligence and cyberspace is not just coding machines, but encoding ethics. Machine learning algorithms reproduce human biases; surveillance technologies infringe on dignity; and the lack of international regulatory consensus leaves power concentrated in the hands of a few corporate giants. Contemporary law is slow to respond because it is grounded in tangible harm and clear jurisdiction—both elusive in cyberspace. AI does not merely function as a device but as an actor, complicating notions of agency, liability, and even the meaning of sentience and responsibility.

In the Manusmriti, law is never absolute but always dependent on desha (location), kala (time), and guna (qualities of a person or entity). Such provisions could guide AI ethics away from rigid codification and toward contextual calibration. AI decisions in healthcare, warfare, or education must be judged not by universal codes but through frameworks of obligation and consequence—exactly what Dharmashastra advocates.

Rather than codifying user rights, Dharmashastra would emphasize the responsibilities of programmers, data controllers, and platform owners toward users, especially vulnerable ones. Whereas the GDPR champions the “right to be forgotten,” a Dharmic approach would emphasize the responsibility to forget—a more active and moral stance.

In the face of digital imperialism, when global platforms stifle local expression, Dharmashastra offers a model to preserve cultural identity and resist epistemic erasure. Content moderation can be informed by dharma and ahimsa, not vague “community standards.” Algorithmic justice may find root in sama-darshana (equal vision) rather than utilitarian trade-offs. In this way, cyberspace can become a space for Bharatiya chintan (Indian reflection), rather than Western mimicry.

AI may lack Atman (soul), but its operations affect society. In Dharmashastra, the doctrine of vicarious liability is clear—if a tool causes harm, the craftsman is liable unless due diligence (yathashakti prayatna) is demonstrated. This aligns with current debates on whether AI developers should bear responsibility for autonomous decisions made by their algorithms.

The king in Dharmashastra is not a dictator but a dharma-pāla—protector of cosmic and civil order. Modern states can adopt this lens: seeing cyber regulation not just as compliance, but as an act of preserving harmony, inclusivity, and truth. Laws on content moderation, cyberbullying, and digital access should be measured by whether they restore sama-darshana and loka-sangraha.

Legal language in cyberspace—full of terms like “user consent,” “terms of service,” and “liability waivers”—reflects the sterile contractual mindset of Western law. Dharmashastra, with its poetic diction and layered meanings, allows law to breathe with moral imagination. A Dharmic cyberspace could reincorporate sanskriti (culture), samaj (society), and shraddha (moral trust), challenging the colonized view that sees law as merely enforceable code rather than the conscience of society.

It would be naïve to glorify Dharmashastra uncritically. It harbors regressive elements—caste hierarchies, gender biases, and fatalism. But as an interpretive tradition, it is open to reform. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said, “The spirit of Dharma can be extracted without the skeleton of its social prejudices.” A decolonized, reimagined Dharmashastra, shorn of orthodoxy yet rich in ethical insight, can be revived as a normative guide for tech governance.

The Indian Constitution, though secular and modern, is not incompatible with civilizational values. Through harmonious construction, Dharmashastra-inspired values—particularly those aligned with Articles 21 (Right to Life), 39A (Access to Justice), and 51A (Fundamental Duties)—can help regulate AI and cyberspace. Judges may apply the principle of transformative constitutionalism to interpret Dharma in ways that adapt to technological evolution—for instance, recognizing the right to digital dignity as a Dharmic extension of privacy under Article 21.

Today’s law schools and tech institutes heavily emphasize Euro-American jurisprudence, giving only cursory treatment to Indic thought. This must change. Dharmashastra should be studied not as an exotic relic but as a foundational canon of legal philosophy. Courses like ‘Cyber Dharma’, ‘Indic Ethics and AI’, and ‘Comparative Legal Philosophy’ can prepare future regulators to move beyond Bentham and Rawls toward a pluralistic jurisprudence.

Governments and regulators must shift from reactive lawmaking to visionary, ethical governance by introducing Digital Dharma Charters—comprehensive ethical guides for AI, big data, and platform regulation. These charters can draw from Rajadharma in the Manusmriti and Kautilya’s Arthashastra, articulating the obligations of states, the rights of netizens, and the responsibilities of intermediaries, grounded in rājyadharma (duty of the sovereign) and prāja-sukha (people’s welfare).

In an era where artificial intelligence and cyberspace threaten to overwhelm the moral imagination of law, Dharmashastra offers not only philosophical ballast but civilizational necessity. It initiates a paradigm shift—from legislating technology through imported codes and foreign ideals to nurturing a jurisprudence that resonates deeply with the Indian psyche. Far from being a relic, Dharmashastra is a living model of justice—contextual, adaptive, and inherently ethical. Its reemergence ensures that India does not retreat into its past but propels its history forward, crafting a decolonized, dignified, and dharmic digital future.

Thus, applying Dharmashastra to AI and cyberspace is not merely a legal alternative, but a metaphysical declaration: that amidst machines, humanity—and its moral compass—shall endure.