Introduction
William Jones (1746–1794) selected the Manusmriti (MS) as the definitive legal text for translation when constructing the Hindu law code. In Indian culture today, people frequently subject the Manusmriti (MS) to abuse or even burning, making it the most vilified text. Manu has become a symbol of oppression, largely due to a history of scholarly violence in its translations. The text seems to wield an invisible power that sanctions discrimination and oppression within Indian society. Much of the ire directed towards it stems from hearsay or selective quoting of passages.
Currently, the study of MS encounters numerous obstacles, including misinformation, prejudice, and propaganda. Indian culture has produced a substantial body of knowledge. However, scholars studying Indian culture often freeze the vast amount of literature to just a corrupted view of the Purusasukta hymn and a few parts of the Manusmriti, which then come to stand for all of Hinduism.
A colonial mindset continues to hinder access to our texts and culture. Traditions and texts generally allow the individualisation of universal values according to time and context. In reverse, modern scholars and Indologists tend to seek to modify the universal principles embedded within the texts in accordance with contemporary ethical and moral standards, rather than deferring to traditional experts. This poor understanding displayed by both sympathetic and unsympathetic scholars of the Hindu cause ultimately causes violence against the culture.
Nithin Sridhar, a former civil engineer who has transitioned into a Dharmic scholar and independent researcher and is now the Director of the INDICA Center for Moksha Studies, provides a much-needed commentary on the Manusmriti that aims to dispel numerous myths surrounding the text. He has previously authored several well-received books on Indian culture. This book offers valuable insights into the MS and tackles fundamental issues such as the definition of Dharma, the significance of smritis, and especially the MS within the Hindu textual universe, and the appropriate approach to studying the shastras.
Authorship of Manusmriti
Indologists, constrained by historicity and Western methods of studying texts, have consistently encountered challenges when approaching Indian texts. They find the concept of apaurusheyatva (non-human origins) of the Vedas or the notion of a single author for epics like the Mahabharata ludicrous. Indologists often rationalise many of the “inconsistencies” they observe, and one common practice is to invoke “interpolations,” or explanations, when verses contradict established theories. Most Indologists engage with Indian texts not to comprehend Indian thought or to enrich their understanding but rather to undermine Indian cultural traditions. This pattern of undermining has a long history, extending from the era of German Indology to contemporary figures in American universities.
The Manusmriti (MS) serves as a notable example. Nithin summarises the prevalent Indological narrative concerning the text as follows:
a) It is viewed as a gradual composition developed over many centuries with various additions.
b) it is perceived as a collage of numerous sources—hearsay, proverbial wisdom, and moral principles compiled by copyists, editors, and compilers.
c) Sections that contradict mainstream opinions are dismissed as excursions or later interpolations.
However, this prevailing perspective overlooks evidence within the Hindu tradition itself. The author adopts an ’emic’ viewpoint, extensively referencing the MS itself and other works, such as the Mahabharata and various Puranas. He shows that MS is a meticulously constructed text with unitary authorship, albeit with a long history of knowledge transmission.
Specifically, the extant work belongs to the Bhrgu recension of the transmission of the Sastra of Svayambhuva Manu. The existing version of MS is neither a haphazard compilation nor a gradual composition. Rather, its subject matter represents a sustained line of transmission within the guru-sisya parampara, involving successive abridgements and multiple recensions. Furthermore, the author elucidates how the narrative structure demonstrates that the extant MS is a carefully conceived and constructed text.
Dharmasastras In Hindu Worldview
The eighteen core Vidyas within Indian traditions encompass the Dharmasastras alongside the Vedas and Vedangas. Dharmasastras (Dharma + Sastra) play a central role in Indian culture. A colonial mentality, coupled with varying degrees of ignorance and confusion, leads to the rejection, abuse, or attempts to “rewrite” the Sastras to fit modern sensibilities.
The term ‘Dharma’ carries contextual meanings, and defining it as religion constitutes epistemic violence. For an individual, Dharma signifies duties and righteous actions; for society, it embodies social harmony; for governance, it represents justice; and in a cosmic context, it denotes order. Dharma acts as a law of being that upholds all entities. A practical interpretation of this ‘upholding’ is an action that yields abhyudaya (material well-being) and nisreyasa (spiritual emancipation) for all.
The term “Sastra” refers to a treatise addressing fundamental principles governing any field. Therefore, a Dharmasastra is a technical treatise on Dharma. Various traditions hold that these texts are eternal and non-human authored, akin to the Vedas. The concept of apaurusheyatva signifies knowledge of a non-human author. It is a misconception that this idea implies ignorance regarding the name of the human author.
Hindu epistemology (methods of acquiring knowledge) operates on paradigms that are significantly different. Among the six means of obtaining knowledge, “sabda” is knowledge derived from words and sentences. Dharmasastra denotes verbal testimony, which conveys Dharma in the form of stipulations and prohibitions. Sabda pramana is considered a valid source of knowledge when the words of an Apta (a trustworthy person with direct knowledge) are rooted in the Veda and are logically sound. The author discusses the detailed Nyaya and Mimansa arguments used to establish the sabda pramana of the MS.
In practice, there is seldom a genuine conflict between Sruti (Vedas) and Smriti. Contradictory prescriptions, both valid, may pertain to different groups or times. The Vedas take precedence only in instances of actual contradiction. Focusing solely on the last, the modern perspective often dismisses the Smritis as irrelevant. The author emphasises that the Dharmasastras have historically guided society as a foundational principle, serving as its socioreligious-cultural-legal backbone.
The Importance of Dharmasastras
For individuals, Dharma and Adharma relate to actions or karma—whether physical, verbal, or mental—that yield outcomes known as karmaphala. Apurva denotes the potential potency of any karma, which may later manifest as either punya (merit) or papa (demerit). Punya leads to happiness, heaven, the purification of minds, and ultimately moksha (liberation). In contrast, papa signifies the adverse consequences of adharmic actions, resulting in sorrow, hell, and bondage.
In Hindu epistemology, verbal testimony is regarded as the primary means of knowledge for addressing non-empirical concepts of Dharma. The Bhagavad Gita explicitly asserts that the Sastras should serve as the unwavering guide to Dharma. The primary sources of Dharma include the Vedas, Dharmasastras, Itihasas, and Puranas. The smritis authored by figures such as Manu, Yajnavalkya, Parasara, and Narada encapsulate the direct spiritual experiences of Vedic truths as articulated by these wise individuals. Secondary sources consist of the conduct, customs, and practices of those well-versed in the Sastra.
The author aims to demonstrate that Manusmriti (MS) is not merely a legal text for a specific time, nor were its doctrines imposed as hegemonic constitutional documents. Rather, it functions as a pramana Sastra for elucidating Dharma and Adharma, with the ultimate aim of achieving moksha. The Dharmasastras retain their eternal relevance due to the enduring causal relationship between karma and its fruits, which transcends socio-political influences.
Nevertheless, the non-empirical essence of Dharma necessitates that we approach the Sastras with faith and humility. Shraddha, or trust in the teachings of the guru and the Sastras, nurtures conviction and the actualisation of truth. Conversely, employing a hermeneutic of suspicion or scepticism to uncover hidden meanings may lead to the dismissal of ideas and speculation regarding ideological, political, and social motives. The essential steps of shraddha encompass sravana (hearing), manana (reflection), nidhidhyasana (meditation), and saksatkara (actualisation).
Subject Matter of Dharmasastras and Locations of Dharma
Dharma is fundamentally about duties and obligations rather than rights. The three main themes that comprise the subject matter of Dharmasastras are acara (practice), vyavahara (jurisprudence), and prayascitta (expiation). Acara refers to one’s obligations; it delineates the dharmic path to follow and the adharmic path to avoid. Vyavahara pertains to jurisprudence and law, encompassing discussions on the responsibilities of kings and the judicial systems. Prayascitta provides guidelines for atoning for adharmic actions and purifying oneself from karmic demerit.
In the many classifications of subject matter, the core idea is that concepts dealing with intangible results are universally valid, while those concerning tangible material outcomes are influenced by time, location, and context. Therefore, acara and prayascitta are considered absolute and eternal, whereas vyavahara—especially in relation to tangible results—remains susceptible to socio-political changes.
The many locations of Dharma include:
- Cosmological: The foundation of Dharma stems from cosmology or creation, encompassing everything from Brahman to inanimate objects. Cosmogony shifts the discourse from a human-centric perspective to a cosmos-centric one. Anthropocentrism fosters human exceptionalism, which fails to accommodate the notions of Dharma, karma, debt, or moksha. Indologists frequently regard the cosmogony outlined in the first chapter as an interpolation within a text discussing Dharma.
- Temporal: This category comprises notions such as Yuga Dharma (Dharma appropriate to a specific era) and Apad Dharma (Dharma in times of crisis).
- Teleological: Pravritti Dharma, which is about being active in the world, helps to purify the mind (cittasuddhi), allowing people to follow Nivritti Dharma and reach moksha.
- Functional: This concept manifests as varna Dharma, asrama Dharma, purusa Dharma, stri Dharma, and raja Dharma.
- Relational: These are relationally defined Dharmas, such as those pertaining to father, mother, son, wife, teacher, or student.
The author points out the misunderstandings by taking the example of two famous verses from Manusmriti (MS) (5.148 and 9.3), which are often considered negative towards women. In reality, these verses define stri (or women’s) Dharma as a relational duty towards those closest to her. When dependence is viewed as a facet of symbiosis rather than as exploitation or demeaning, the verses indicate that, in matters of Dharma, women are reliant on their fathers, husbands, and sons.
Cosmologically, these verses relate to Manusya Dharma, teleologically to Pravritti Dharma, and relationally to Dharma within the family context. A correct interpretation suggests that men should treat all women with respect and protect them, while children should not abandon their elderly parents. Furthermore, the verses illustrate the pathways through which women can achieve overall well-being, including access to education.
Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: The First Four Verses
MS is primarily a pramana Sastra on Dharma that elucidates knowledge about karma (actions) and karmaphala (fruits). It serves as a guide for individuals seeking moksa while pursuing artha and kama through dharmic means. Tradition proclaims that we should not criticise Sruti and Smriti, as they are considered authoritative in matters of the Dharma.
The author adheres to a textual commentatorial tradition that focuses exclusively on the first four verses of the text. The author provides a word-for-word interpretation of these verses (out of a total of 2684 in the extant versions), followed by an in-depth discussion that clarifies the eternal principles of Dharma and a comprehensive understanding of the entire text. Additionally, the author addresses and resolves numerous challenging questions surrounding MS.
In Hindu Sastras, the initial four verses typically encapsulate an explanation of Anubandha Chatustayam (four-fold connections), which consist of:
- Adhikari: qualifications
- Visaya: the subject matter
- Prayojana: fruit or the end result
- Sambandha: relationship between the three
In the context of MS, adhikari can be understood in three ways: (a) the fitness to study; (b) the fitness to teach; and (c) the fitness to practice Dharma after acquiring proper knowledge. The scripture differentiates between mere “reading” and Sastra adhyayana (deep study), which necessitates components such as brahmacharya (celibacy), tapas (austerity), and guidance from a guru. This study demands a lifestyle marked by austerity and a sense of duty and obligation. The subject matter is Dharma, while the fruit is moksa and the fulfilment of all purusharthas.
The verses explicitly assert that MS represents the verbal testimony (sabda pramana) of an apta (a trustworthy person), approached with trust and humility. The words of Apta are based on the Vedas (Sruti). The application of hermeneutics of suspicion, combined with frameworks of egalitarianism and the intense individuality characteristic of the modern age, can lead to an interpretation of the texts as discriminatory.
Our understanding shifts when we realise that Indian texts and traditions emphasise duty and maintaining cosmic harmony. However, the choice to follow these teachings rests upon the individual’s capacity, free will, and discretion. There has never been a hegemonic imposition of the Vedas or Dharmasastras within Indian culture.
MS is closely associated with duty and a structured approach to study by a student who has adequate qualifications and competence. The framing of narratives around “rights” and subsequent exploitation or hierarchies has undermined the understanding of Indian culture, driven by a long history of colonial literature, Indologists, and post-independence academia. Crucially, adhikara, or eligibility, only applies to sastric study and has no connection to practicing Dharma. Gita 3.35 explicitly states that everyone has the right to perform Svadharma: “One’s own duty, however poorly performed, is superior to another duty well performed.”
As part of their Svadharma, Brahmanas have a primary duty to study texts and to teach them to all varnas. The secondary adhikarins are kshatriyas and vaisyas who undergo upanayana and other samskaras with mantras and thus become entitled to study the Dharmasastra. In the tertiary sense, everyone has the right to receive knowledge about their respective duties and Dharma, as outlined in the Smriti.
Women, Sudras, and Antaraprabhavas
The author addresses the contentious issue of the status of women, Sudras, and individuals from mixed varnas in relation to Dharma and Dharmasastra. This discussion is detailed and significant because the author explains that the ban only applies to directly studying the Vedas and Manusmriti, not to learning about Dharma and responsibilities that everyone can understand. The prohibition also does not extend to other branches of knowledge, such as grammar.
Similarly, the author quotes Sri Madhavacharya, who states that texts beginning with ‘atha’ are accessible to everyone. This includes Vasista, Katyayana, Yama, Ausanasa, and Parasara Smritis. Similarly, everyone is eligible to listen to the sastric teachings of itihasas and puranas. Thus, Sudras, people of mixed castes, and women can study certain smritis and itihasas-puranas, as explained in texts like the Mahabharata.
Women are divided into Brahmavadinis and Sadyovadhus. The former group has the authority (adhikara) to study the Veda-Dharmasastras, with examples including Gargi, Maitreyi, and Apala. For the latter, the author shows how vivaha itself serves the purpose of upanayana. The increasing emphasis on family responsibilities, combined with interruptions from menstrual cycles or pregnancy, makes it unrealistic and unfair for women to continuously study texts under strict conditions related to their duties in this age (Yuga-Dharma).
In the current Yuga, all women are sadyovadhus, and stri-Dharma becomes their primary Dharma. For women with intense vairagya (like Andal and Meera Bai), there has been no restriction on the Bhakti path regarding a study of any Sastra. Contradicting many popular narratives, the text (MS 3.56) asserts that when women are honoured, the gods take delight; conversely, when they are not honoured, their rituals yield no fruit.
Inclusivity
The commentary reveals an inclusive nature of Dharma in general and the Manusmriti (MS) in particular. Within the broader frameworks of karma and reincarnation, the MS does not advocate utopian ideals but rather acknowledges human diversity and differences. It outlines various paths leading to both material welfare and spiritual emancipation, each defined by individual Dharma (Svadharma) and nature (Svaguna).
The MS explicates Dharma for the four varnas and the antarprabhava (individuals born from mixed varna categories). Therefore, the MS caters to everyone who follows the Vaidic tradition. It is worth noting that there are differing interpretations of the term antarprabhava. Surendra Kumar, a Sanskrit scholar affiliated with the Arya Samaj, interprets this term as ‘asrama’, or ‘stages of life’. He has authored revisionist versions of the MS, both including and excluding what he deems to be interpolations. Additionally, he presents other revisionist interpretations, particularly regarding contentious subjects such as meat-eating. In the appendix section, the author thoroughly refutes Kumar’s position, drawing on the works of traditional Sanskrit scholars.
Although the MS does not serve as a legal code, it is possible to derive legal and moral principles from the smritis. There was never a hegemonic imposition of the MS. Ultimately, MS situates human duties in a cosmological perspective that emphasises selflessness, order, and harmony.
Varna
There is an insightful exposition on varna in the appendix section of the book, providing a fundamental understanding of varna as crystallised from our texts and Sastras. Indian culture identified the varnas as categories within a well-functioning human society. However, a comprehensive theoretical framework remained unarticulated. This endeavour was primarily undertaken by Indologists and Marxist-influenced scholars post-independence, who constructed caste purely in terms of socio-secular categories, defining it essentially as a ‘class system’. A class system suggests hierarchies, leading to exploitations and discrimination.
Thus, it is refreshing to encounter the portion of the book where the author outlines the profound principles of varna, which, as envisioned in the Purusasukta, encompasses four dimensions:
- The innate individual nature (svaguna and svabhava): a variable combination of the three gunas – sattva, rajas, and tamas.
- The division of human activities and duties based on one’s nature and Svadharma.
- The emergence of jivatma from various parts of the Cosmic Purusa and ultimately culminating in the attainment of divine essence.
- A ritual state.
The author emphasises that the ritual dimension of varna, often neglected in modern discourses, is essential because it serves the broader purpose of maintaining cosmological stability and order in the universe. Varna ultimately facilitates the unfolding of the divine essence within each individual through ritualistic functions in the present life.
Two prominent thinkers in modern India, Sri Aurobindo and Ananda Coomaraswamy, converged on the notion that three quartets form the backbone of Indian culture, which has helped avert civilisational collapse in the face of relentless onslaughts. Other cultures have not been so fortunate. These three quartets consist of the four varnas, the four asramas, and the four purusharthas. A comprehensive understanding of Indian culture requires studying these deeply connected elements together. An isolated examination of varna, without considering other metaphysical concepts such as karma and reincarnation, has resulted in what Sri Aurobindo termed a ‘parody called the caste system.’
Prof. Venkat Rao refers to the Jatis as ‘biocultural formations’, representing the lived realities of Indian social systems. These formations are continually evolving and offer a distinct framework for understanding. The conflation of jatis with varna has significantly contributed to the conceptual confusion prevalent in contemporary Indian social, political, and academic narratives. It is essential to discard Western perspectives to reassess Indian culture and develop a new understanding of varnas and jatis. The debate persists to date, without any real solution, regarding whether birth determines varna. On one hand, there is a denial that varna is birth-based; on the other, birth-based reservations are on the rise.
The author cites Chittaranjan Naik’s essay, which illustrates that the immediate cause of varna is birth, while the remote cause is karmaphala, which results from karma accrued in past lives. Consequently, there is a strong correlation between birth and varna, as both are influenced by past karma. In this context, the assertion that varna can be dissociated from birth, along with alternative secular-egalitarian explanations related to profession, demonstrates a lack of understanding. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance in Indian culture that the highest ideal is moksa, which is accessible to any individual, regardless of varna or gender. The appendix section on varna is one of the most critical parts of the book and warrants careful reading.
Dharma (Samanya and Visesa), Varna, and Asrama
In popular language, the term ‘Dharma’ encompasses various meanings (duty, charity, righteousness, justice, and morality). However, its literal translation is ‘that which upholds’. It is Brahman who sustains the universe by assigning each object its respective duties according to its nature. Consequently, the gunas and karmas created by Brahman uphold the universe and establish cosmic order.
Dharma is broadly divided into two types: Samanya (common to all) and Visesa (special duties pertaining to the individual and context). An individual’s Dharma (Svadharma) comprises both Samanya-Dharma and the applicable Visesa-Dharma. Principles such as non-injury, truthfulness, non-stealing, cleanliness, and self-control are Dharmas that are universally relevant across various varnas. ‘Visesa-Dharma’ is influenced by several factors, including an individual’s temperament and inner inclinations (varna), their stage in life (asrama), the time (kala), the location (desa), and specific emergency situations (Apad Dharma).
Among these factors, varna and asrama are pivotal to the practice of Visesa-Dharma. The Bhagavad Gita discusses the creation of four varnas based on guna (natural qualities and tendencies) and karma (personal duties), which are ultimately determined by one’s prarabdha karma (actions from previous lives that manifest in the present). Importantly, varna does not relate to the modern understanding of caste or caste identities, which are largely a colonial narratives imposed on Indian society. It is vital to recognise that no varna is superior or inferior to another. The sole purpose of this classification into different varnas was to effectively distribute duties and foster a prosperous and harmonious society.
Concluding Remarks
This much-needed book addresses the misconceptions that have led to the abuse and even the burning of the Manusmriti. A faulty understanding of MS has come from a series of translations by Western authors who did not follow the traditional learning methods in a guru-sishya parampara, a gurukula, and a structured study of Indian texts, especially grammar. Secondary and tertiary translations often relied on the original translation as their primary source, and they frequently lacked knowledge of Sanskrit.
This attack on Indian texts originated in German universities, a phenomenon that Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee elucidate in their seminal work, The Nay Science. Professor Balagangadhara notes that although translations are essential for gaining cultural access, in India, they can be perceived as an attack, as the interpretation (or telos) frequently takes precedence over the translation, rather than the usual reverse. The ultimate aim of these translations seems to be their portrayal of a caste-ridden Indian society controlled by manipulative Brahmins.
The term ‘interpolations’ is often used, perhaps lazily, to dismiss any uncomfortable passages for both supporters and detractors of the Manusmriti. Why does a text that is allegedly anti-women also assert that an acarya is superior to ten upadhyayas (who teach for a salary); that a father is superior to a hundred acaryas; and that a mother is superior to a thousand fathers in the context of the role of a guru?
A comprehensive book that addresses all 2,684 verses of the extant text would undoubtedly be desirable, although it might present challenges. However, a focused exploration of the alleged ‘interpolations’ could certainly be a worthwhile project for the future, especially for English-educated Indians who take pride in their culture but remain uninformed and thus uncomfortable with the criticisms directed at the Manusmriti.
Colonialism has significantly impacted how we read and understand our texts. Our frameworks and categories are key to understanding what these texts are genuinely attempting to convey. Western frameworks that rigorously analyse Indian texts adhere to an entirely different paradigm. A scientific perspective views all phenomena as constructs of images within the brain, maintaining a permanent distinction between the original ‘noumenon’ and the constructed ‘phenomenon’. The noumenon remains forever beyond our comprehension. Such a dichotomy is absent in Indian thought. The Western definition of knowledge (justified true belief) is fraught with issues, as illustrated by the Gettier examples.
In contrast, Indian thought equates knowledge with the Supreme Self. The progressive accumulation of knowledge throughout the journey of jnana leads to the ultimate knowledge of the Self. Both Hindu epistemology and ontology commence with the Self and culminate in the Self. The Self is a distinct entity apart from matter and mind.
In light of this incommensurability of paradigms, it is challenging to envision someone outside the Indian frameworks doing justice to Indian texts. Their interpretations can be, at worst, a form of severe violence and, at best, distortions. Regrettably, many Indians tend to accept whatever the colonisers have articulated, often lacking access to the original language or the knowledge frameworks that contextualise these texts.
The Manusmriti is an ancient text that deserves profound respect as a significant source of Dharma. Following his death at the hands of Lord Rama’s arrow, Vali questions whether it was truly Dharma for the embodiment of Dharma to kill him from behind. To justify his actions, Sri Rama references Manu (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, Sarga 18, verses 30-32), and one can only hope that these citations are not considered interpolations. There is a pressing need to re-evaluate our understanding of the Manusmriti (MS) and restore it to the esteemed position it rightfully deserves as a source of eternal Dharma. This book serves as a commendable starting point.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
