Comparing Manusmriti and the Constitution in the battle for India's identity.

First things first, let's make something clear from the start: India did not start its journey on January 26th, 1950 with a clean slate and a cup of chai. No, it was a country with a population of 300 million people, carrying thousands of years of cultural baggage, and one revolutionary figure in a suit - Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - who boldly declared, "We are not going to tolerate this caste supremacy nonsense any longer."

But as is often the case, there are those who still whisper, "But the Manusmriti says..." And that, my dear reader, is where the real identity crisis begins.

When a 2,000-year-old Brahminical code and a 75-year-old democratic charter collide in the imagination of India, the result is far from harmony. Instead, it stirs up a heated national debate. This is not a battle between ancient wisdom and modernity; it is a struggle for power, morality, and the authority to define what is right.

So, what exactly is the Manusmriti?

Also known as the Manava Dharma Shastra, the Manusmriti is an ancient Hindu legal text written between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It claims to lay down rules for dharma (duty), societal structure, and law, and is traditionally attributed to the mythical lawgiver, Manu.

However, instead of being a spiritual guidebook, it functions more like a user manual for a society deeply entrenched in the caste system.

Before the trolls get ready to pounce on their keyboards, let's be clear: this is not an attempt to discredit the Manusmriti or its significance in ancient Indian society. Like many other ancient texts, it was a product of its time - a time of rigid hierarchies, limited mobility, and a worldview shaped by survival and order rather than equality and individual rights.

It served its purpose as a code for a specific social structure, but just as we have moved beyond outdated medical practices and scientific beliefs, we must also evolve past archaic social codes when building a modern, democratic nation.

One of the most striking features of the Manusmriti is its unapologetic promotion of social hierarchy. It assigns duties and rights based on birth, rather than merit.

"For the prosperity of the world, the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra were created from the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet of Brahma."

This cosmic analogy solidifies the caste hierarchy, with Brahmins at the top and Shudras at the bottom, establishing a social order that lasted for centuries.

Another aspect of the Manusmriti that is not just outdated but oppressive is its treatment of women.

"Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age. A woman is never fit for independence."

This statement reinforces the Manusmriti's belief that women are to remain under male guardianship throughout their lives. It denies women their rights, agency, and freedom, relegating them to a life of dependence.

The Manusmriti also envisions a Brahminical state, where ultimate authority is given to the Brahmin class. "Let the king, after rising early, respectfully attend to Brahmins learned in the three Vedas." This sets the stage for a theocratic monarchy, where secular rule bows down to religious diktats. In this system, there is no room for democracy, individual liberty, or constitutional checks and balances.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the Manusmriti is its unequal system of justice. It prescribes harsh punishments based on caste, with lower castes facing severe consequences for the same crimes that upper castes may get away with.

"If a once-born person insults a twice-born one with gross abuse, he should suffer the cutting off of his tongue; as he is of low origin."

Here, "once-born" refers to Shudras and "twice-born" refers to the upper three varnas. It is clear that the Manusmriti considers someone's caste as grounds for punishment, explicitly stating that Shudras are of "low origin."

And yet, when confronted with these disturbing aspects of the Manusmriti, there are those who defend it by saying, "But the caste system was originally based on karma, not janma! It was about what you do, not who your parents are." A noble idea, indeed, but as we delve into the texts, it becomes clear that this was not how it played out in reality.

The Bhagavad Gita does say, "Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam guna karma vibhagashah" - meaning the four varnas were created by Krishna based on guna (qualities) and karma (actions). It sounds lovely, spiritual, and flexible. But in practice, birth became destiny, and staying in one's "lane" became a religious duty.

Next time someone argues for the ancient merit-based caste system, ask them to show you where the application form was for a Brahmin position in 500 BCE.

Even our great Indian epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, are often held up as moral guides for society. Yet, a closer look reveals enough instances of caste discrimination to make a modern-day HR department break out in a sweat.

In the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana, we meet Shambuka, a Shudra who dares to perform spiritual practices reserved for higher castes. What does Lord Ram do? He beheads him. Literally. Why? Because a lower-caste man meditating was seen as a threat to the cosmic order. This is dharma in action - as long as you belong to the right social bracket.

In the Mahabharata, we see Karna, a skilled warrior with a resume fit for a Kshatriya, being denied the right to duel Arjuna simply because of his low birth. In a society that supposedly valued merit, it seems that birth played a more significant role in determining one's fate.

And then there's Ekalavya, the prince of the Nishadas, who is so skilled in archery that the guru, Dronacharya, demands his thumb as a fee for a class he was not even allowed to attend. This is caste-based gatekeeping at its worst.

So, while these epics may be celebrated for their teachings on dharma and virtue, let's not ignore the fact that they were also products of a society deeply entrenched in the caste system. Even gods and gurus reinforced the system, rather than challenging it.
Let's start by clarifying one thing: India did not wake up on January 26th, 1950 with a blank slate and a cup of tea. No, my friend. We woke up with a population of 300 million people, carrying thousands of years of cultural baggage, and with one determined revolutionary in a suit - Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - who boldly declared, "We will no longer tolerate this caste supremacy nonsense."

But, as it always happens, there will be someone who whispers in the background, "But Manusmriti said..." And that, my dear reader, is where the real identity crisis begins.

When a 2,000-year-old Brahminical code and a 75-year-old democratic charter come face to face in the Indian imagination, it does not result in harmony, but rather a heated national debate. This is not a story of ancient wisdom versus modernity, but rather a battle of power, morality, and who gets to define what is right.

So, what exactly is the Manusmriti? Also known as the Manava Dharma Shastra, it is an ancient Hindu legal text written between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It claims to lay down rules for dharma, societal structure, and law, and is believed to have been written by the mythical lawgiver Manu.

But, let's not be mistaken, it is not a spiritual guidebook, but rather a user manual for a society deeply entrenched in caste divisions. Before the trolls warm up their keyboards, let's make one thing clear: this is not an attempt to belittle the Manusmriti or its place in ancient Indian society. Like many ancient texts, it was a product of its time - a time with rigid hierarchies, limited mobility, and a worldview shaped by survival and order rather than equality and rights.

It served as a code for a specific social structure, and in that context, it had its relevance. But just as we have moved beyond outdated medical practices like bloodletting, or outdated astronomical beliefs like a geocentric universe, we must also evolve past outdated social codes when shaping a modern, democratic nation.

The Manusmriti is unapologetically hierarchical. It assigns duties and rights based on one's birth, not their merits. As it states, "For the prosperity of the world, the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra were created from the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet of Brahma." This cosmic metaphor institutionalizes caste hierarchy, with Brahmins placed at the top and Shudras at the bottom, establishing a social order that lasted for centuries.

When it comes to women, the Manusmriti is not just outdated, but also oppressive. It declares, "Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age. A woman is never fit for independence." This clause highlights Manusmriti's view that women should remain under male guardianship throughout their lives. Rights, agency, and freedom? Not in this book.

The Manusmriti envisions a theocratic monarchy led by the priestly class, where secular rule bows down to religious diktats. There is no concept of democracy, individual liberty, or constitutional checks and balances. One verse states, "Let the king, after rising early, respectfully attend to Brahmins learned in the three Vedas." This gives ultimate authority to Brahmins, relegating others to a lower position in society.

One of the most disturbing aspects of Manusmriti is its unequal system of justice. It states, "If a once-born person insults a twice-born one with gross abuse, he should suffer the cutting off of his tongue; as he is of low origin." In this verse, "once-born" typically refers to a Shudra, and "twice-born" refers to the upper three varnas. The verse prescribes a severe punishment for a Shudra who abuses a member of the higher varnas, explicitly stating the reason as their "low origin." Meanwhile, a Brahmin committing the same crime may face a milder penalty or none at all.

Now, we often hear the defense, "But the caste system was originally based on karma, not janma! It was about what you do, not who your father is." A noble idea, like communism or gym memberships in January. But let's take a closer look at the texts. The Bhagavad Gita states, "Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam guna karma vibhagashah" - meaning the four varnas were created by Krishna based on guna and karma. Sounds lovely, spiritual, and flexible, right? Except, that is not how it played out. By the time of the Dharmashastras, especially Manusmriti, caste had become hereditary. It even outlined the "punishment" for people born of varna-mixing marriages - like the combination of a Shudra father and a Brahmin mother, whose child, according to the text, becomes a Chandala - condemned to live outside the village, eat from broken pots, and wear clothes made from corpses. Not exactly a progressive HR policy.

If caste was truly based on one's profession, then why were children barred from entering certain job markets for centuries? Why were Dalits denied education, temple entry, and even the right to hear sacred verses? It sounds less like a career ladder and more like a caste cage. In theory, varna may have allowed for some mobility, but in practice, birth became destiny, and staying in one's "lane" became a religious duty. So, the next time someone brings up the ancient merit-based caste utopia, feel free to smile and say, "Nice fantasy. Now show me where the application form was for a Brahmin post in 500 BCE."

Let's also take a look at the great Indian epics - Ramayana and Mahabharata - often cited as moral blueprints for society. Yet, both offer enough examples of caste-based discrimination to make a modern-day HR department sweat bullets. In the Uttara Kanda of Ramayana, we meet Shambuka, a Shudra who dared to perform tapasya - a spiritual practice reserved for the higher varnas. Lord Ram's response? He beheads him. Not symbolically, but literally. Why? Because a lower-caste man meditating was apparently disrupting the cosmic order. Ah yes, dharma in action - unless you are born into the wrong social bracket.

Let's fast-forward to Mahabharata, where Karna, a tragic hero with the resume of a Kshatriya but the birth certificate of a Suta, is denied the right to duel Arjuna simply because of his low birth. Never mind his skills - meritocracy was clearly not a trend in ancient Kurukshetra. And then there is Ekalavya, the prince of the Nishadas, who is so skilled at archery that Dronacharya demands his thumb as tuition fees for a class he was not even allowed to attend. If that is not caste-based academic gatekeeping, then what is?

So, while these epics are often held up as examples of dharma and virtue, let's not pretend that they were caste-neutral tales of equality and open-mindedness. They reflect a society deeply rooted in hierarchy, where even gods and gurus reinforced the system, instead of dismantling it.

[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]