Opinion | Manusmriti: A Text Condemned Beyond Its Due |
Few ancient texts in India provoke as much passion, outrage, and misunderstanding as the ancient code of law attributed to Manu, popularly known as the Manusmriti. Frequently invoked in contemporary political debates as the foundational source of caste oppression and social inequality, it is often condemned without careful attention to its historical context or actual function within Hindu society.
Anyone who watches the political discourse in India will soon realise that one of the most quoted, vilified, and assailed texts in the Indian socio-political context is the Manusmriti. From casteism to patriarchal oppression, the Manusmriti is often thought to be the root of all that is evil in the country. Copies of the book are frequently burned by protestors, regardless of the specific demands of their protests. From Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to Kancha Ilaiah, and from feminists to philosophers, the Manusmriti is seen as a text that has historically originated, or at least significantly contributed to, many of the evils that haunt India today.
Protests and arguments against the book have been ongoing for almost a century now. The injunction that molten lead should be poured into the ears of a Sudra who hears the Veda is often misattributed to Manu; a mistake that originated with Ambedkar and was later carried forward by subsequent writers without much scrutiny. Ambedkar held Manu responsible for the caste system and writes that “Manu can be charged with being the progenitor, if not the author, of the caste system. […] There can be no question that Manu is responsible for upholding the principle of gradation and rank."
It was in 1927 that Dr B.R. Ambedkar burned the Manusmriti as an act of protest. Such book burnings continue even today, though they scarcely attract attention; for instance, in 2016, students in some Delhi universities burned the Smriti again. One can safely assume that the book burning of a century ago did not bring about the expected results, which is why the practice continues even after a century.
This compels one to ask a few questions: How far are these claims about the Manusmriti true? Do we really need to trace all our miseries to a code of law that was authored at least two thousand years ago? Do we need to vilify a code that is largely obsolete in daily life, while glorifying primitive codes like Sharia that are still considered paramount in the life of a devout Muslim? And finally, considering the time at which the law was codified, how good was it?
Some scholars claim that Manu lived many millennia ago. Dr V. Raghavan writes that Manu predated the Vedas, the Mahabharata, and Yaska, the author of the Nirukta. A more realistic estimate, however, would place the text around the turn of the Common Era. The more widely accepted view currently is that the Manusmriti was composed between the second century BCE and the second century CE. Georg Bühler, who translated the Manusmriti into English in the nineteenth century, dated the text to the second century BCE. The more recent critical edition of the text, edited by Prof. Patrick Olivelle, arrives at a later date and argues that it must have been composed around the second century CE. This places Manu in the period of the Mauryan Empire, during which there were........