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 profound transformations in the society, politics, and religion of the country. The Mauryan period was a time when Buddhism and other religious systems were gaining popularity under explicit state support. During the Mauryan Empire, Vedic ritual centrality was in decline. Animal sacrifice, which formed an important part of the Vedas, became less prevalent. Caste hierarchy was also challenged philosophically, as birth-based superiority was questioned by emerging religious movements. Buddhism, Jainism, and the Ajivika sect gained prominence, and, as royal patronage was offered to Buddhism, the influence of Brahmanism declined in royal courts as well. Manu may have felt the need to write or codify a set of laws that reinforced the privileged status of Brahmins. It is often the case that religious sentiment intensifies when a community perceives its traditions to be under threat. During the Mughal Empire, amid atrocities against the non-Muslim population of India, the Bhakti movement gained greater traction. A similar pattern can be observed in contemporary times as well. Under the perceived threat of Islamophobia, Muslims, as a community, have become increasingly religious. A similar impulse might have inspired Manu too, to write a code of law that presents the world as Brahmin-centric, at a time when Brahminism had lost royal patronage. Prof. Olivelle notes that the ideology of Brahmanical exceptionalism takes center stage in Manu, and that the entire treatise is organized around the Brahmin and his central and exceptional position within society. This is one of the distinguishing features of the Manusmriti when compared with other legal texts such as the Gautama Dharma Sutra or Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Although there are law codes older than the Manusmriti—such as those authored by Apastamba, Gautama, and Baudhayana—none attained the authority or prominence that the Manusmriti came to hold. One reason is the use of metre in the Manusmriti, which also functions as a mnemonic device, making the Smrti easier to remember and to quote accurately. The earlier codes lacked this advantage, as they were not composed in prose. The fact that Brahmanism takes centre stage in the Manusmriti also contributed to its authority. Later authors, including Yajnavalkya, Brhaspati, and Vatsyayana, praise Manu and regard him as an authoritative source. Gradually, the Manusmriti came to be seen as the most important Smrti, the prominent law code, in ancient India. This, however, does not mean that the Manusmriti functioned as a strict code of law comparable to Sharia, uniformly followed by the whole of society. As the leftist historian Romila Thapar notes, the Dharmashastras “were actually not codes of law but norms relating to social obligations and ritual requirements.” A similar view is expressed by Manu S. Pillai in his recent work, where he argues that such texts were expressions of Brahminical aspirations rather than functioning as proper legal codes. The Manusmriti, as noted above, is written in metre, unlike other Indian (or Hindu) legal texts composed up to that point. This made it easier to quote, and many later authors and lawgivers who followed Manu cited him and treated his work as a normative authority. Interestingly, this did not make the Manusmriti a code accepted across India or uniformly followed by all Hindus. There were numerous customs, rituals, and ceremonies prescribed in the Manusmriti that were neither accepted nor followed by many communities. Regionally and caste-wise, several of the rituals and ways of life suggested by the Smritis were rejected, while many practices explicitly prohibited by them continued to be accepted. Hindus, as is well known, do not constitute a uniform group. Each caste or sub-caste has its own rules and practices, some of which may align with the Smritis, while many do not. Although the Manusmriti was regarded as authoritative and Manu was revered as a sage within the belief system of many, not everyone who could be called a Hindu, not even Brahmins across India, followed the rules it prescribed. Over time, many Smritis emerged, including the Yajnavalkya-Smriti, Narada-Smriti, and Vishnu-Smriti. Some of these Smritis were composed relatively early, in the centuries immediately following Manu, while others were authored much later, even after the tenth century C.E., often reflecting the prevailing customs of their time. Each group, caste, and sub-caste tended to follow its own Smriti. For example, among the Namboodiri Brahmins of Kerala, the Shaankarasmriti was prevalent. Many regional customs sanctioned by the Shaankarasmriti are explicitly prohibited in the Manusmriti. Despite its later reputation as an all-encompassing authority, the Manusmriti was never a canonical or universally binding text within Hinduism. Hindu traditions have always been plural, and adherence to Manu’s prescriptions varied widely across regions, castes, and sub-castes. Many communities explicitly rejected large portions of the Manusmriti and instead followed their own customary laws and locally accepted Smritis, while others ignored Smriti injunctions altogether when they conflicted with lived practice. Law and social regulation in Hindu society were thus shaped far more by custom and context than by any single text. Manu’s work functioned largely as an ideological outline reflecting Brahmanical aspirations, not as a uniform legal code governing all Hindus. Consequently, the sweeping importance often ascribed to the Manusmriti in contemporary socio-political discourse is a modern exaggeration rather than a reflection of its actual historical role across the Hindu fold. Setting aside this exaggeration, we may now examine the problematic aspects that exist in the text. While reading the text, it is imperative to keep in mind that one is engaging with a work composed nearly two thousand years ago, one that reflects the social values and structures of its time. Everything from the way the text views women to the way it treats those outside its intended audience may appear incongruous with contemporary values. For example, the aphorism “Na stri svatantryam arhati” (“A woman is not qualified to act independently”) is one of the oft-quoted lines cited to demonstrate the text’s misogyny. The line does indeed appear in the Manusmriti, and, when viewed from a contemporary standpoint, it is laughably preposterous. Yet, though not justifiable, the statement is historically understandable, given that it was articulated nearly two thousand years ago. It reflects the social conditioning and normative aspirations of a society far removed from our own. It would be grossly unfair to suggest that this aphorism continues to guide social life today, or that women in contemporary Indian society are viewed as undeserving of freedom or incapable of independent action. There is little evidence to suggest that present-day attitudes toward women in India are shaped by views prevalent two millennia ago. For the record, the same Manusmriti that places limits on a woman’s life also states that “where women are revered, there the gods rejoice; but where they are not, no rite bears any fruit.” From the Manusmriti to the Vishnusmriti, almost all Smritis are written in a distinctly Brahmin-centric manner. They contain derogatory and demeaning statements about castes outside the Brahmin fold, and as one moves further down the caste hierarchy, the descriptions increasingly adopt dehumanizing or sub-human tones. Although there is no injunction in the Manusmriti about pouring molten lead into the ears of a Shudra who hears the Veda—as Ambedkar claimed—there are comparable, and in some cases even harsher, remarks about non-Brahmins in many Smritis. (One may compare such statements with the approval of slavery found in another major religious tradition. The crucial difference, however, is that while the Manusmriti is considered largely obsolete by almost all Hindus, the other text is regarded as infallible for eternity and therefore continues to be treated as binding.) Yet, despite all this condemnation, the Veda is not explicitly prohibited for non-Brahmins in the Manusmriti. In fact, while elaborating on the life of a student, the text states that “in a time of adversity, the rules allow a man to study the Veda under a person who is not a Brahmin; and, as long as he is studying, he should walk after that teacher and serve him obediently,” thereby making it clear that the Veda could be learned and taught by non-Brahmins as well. In sum, the Manusmriti emerges not as a timeless, universally enforced legal code, but as a historically situated Brahmanical text—one shaped by the anxieties, aspirations, and social realities of its age, and one whose later notoriety far exceeds its actual role in regulating Hindu society. While it undeniably contains passages that are hierarchical, exclusionary, and deeply at odds with modern ethical sensibilities, its authority was always contested, limited, and mediated by custom, region, and community practice. To understand the Manusmriti solely as the root of contemporary social evils is therefore to commit a serious historical simplification. Having outlined the text’s context, reception, and exaggerated modern reputation, the next part of this essay will turn to a closer examination of the contents of the Smriti itself, engaging more directly with its prescriptions, contradictions, and internal logic. The writer is a commentator with a research degree in philosophy from the University of Sheffield, focusing on the intersections of culture, history, and politics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.