Modern oaths are social instruments. A witness swears, and what backs the swearing is the penalty for perjury and the loss of standing that follows exposure. The arrangement works through consequences administered by people. Vedic oath-taking is described in terms that do not fit this model at all, and the difference is not a matter of them being more superstitious than us.
In the Vedic frame, an utterance made in alignment with satya is itself an act with structural consequences, because speech is not a neutral medium but a power in its own right. An oath is therefore not a promise supported by a threat; it is a deliberate placing of oneself into the order, witnessed by beings whose function is to hold that order rather than to punish deviation from it. Agni is present at the wedding not as a guarantor who will retaliate but as the one who registers what has occurred.
This explains the specific horror the texts attach to a broken vow, which reads as disproportionate if you assume the model is social. The breach is not primarily a betrayal of the other party. It is anrta, a local tear in the pattern, and the consequences described are not punishments handed down but distortions that follow structurally, in the way that a wrong note is not punished but simply is wrong. Varuna, the deity most associated with this, is characteristically described as binding rather than striking, which is the sense in which he serves as keeper of cosmic order.
An oath that alters the structure of things rather than your reputation is a heavier thing to make. To see the deity who registers them, explore more of The Living Sanatan Timeline.
Part 27 of 100 — Series I: From the Beginning
Series I: From the BeginningThe Five KoshasIndexFAQThe Timeline