Manusmriti: Why the ancient text continues to stir controversy

Sometime in the afternoon of March 13, 2016, a group of men jumped out of two bikes on a market road in Udumalpet in Tiruppur district of Tamil Nadu and brutally hacked a young couple with machetes until they were motionless.

While the man, Shankar, succumbed to injuries, his wife, Kausalya, survived. Shankar was a Dalit and Kausalya belonged to a backward community (considered superior to Dalits, according to the Hindu caste system). Their love marriage was opposed by Kausalya’s family, especially her father, B Chinnaswamy, who was accused of masterminding the attack.

Chinnaswamy, who was later acquitted of all charges by the Madras High Court, may not have read the ancient Hindu text Manusmriti or may have been unaware of what it says. But he seemed to firmly believe that an ‘upper caste’ woman is restricted from marrying someone from the ‘lower caste’, much like the Manusmriti says.

“According to Manusmriti, women of lower caste can marry men belonging to the upper caste but upper caste women cannot marry men belonging to the lower caste. If they do so, the child born to the inter-caste couple will become untouchable,” says Aadhavan Dheetchanya, a writer.

But it doesn’t matter, Dheetchanya adds, whether one has read the Manusmriti. Many still fervently follow the Manusmriti as the divine code of conduct.

“All this is so deep-rooted in the Hindu society that no one needs to say what is written in Manusmriti and what was followed thousands of years back,” he adds.

According to Dheetchanya, before the Constitution of India was passed and adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949, a large number of Hindus used to follow Manusmriti as the valid rule book on Hinduism. “That was what made Dr BR Ambedkar say that the society was built on inequalities.”

Although the ancient rule book never found any legal validation in independent India, he says, there is a need to intervene as many adapted it and continue to follow those ‘rules’ without knowing who said and why they said so.

What is Manusmriti

The ancient text, whose origins are attributed to Manu—who is believed to be the first man and lawgiver during 5th century BC—is a discourse on the roles and moral codes to be observed by different sections of the society. It was one of the first Sanskrit texts to be translated into English using which the British formulated the Hindu law in India.

However, it has also been the source for many to justify and legitimise oppressive social structures and suppression of women. Several reformist leaders in the past, including Dr BR Ambedkar and EV Ramasamy aka Periyar, have held Manusmriti responsible for creating the caste system and publicly burnt it.

While calling out its inconsistencies, Mahatma Gandhi argued that the text recognises different callings and professions, defines one’s duties not one’s rights, that all work is equally necessary, and of equal status.

Burning issue

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi MP Thol. Thirumavalavan, a Dalit leader from Tamil Nadu, recently stirred the debate once again by quoting a portion of Manusmriti and stating that the text considered “women as prostitutes”. He also called for “the burning of the text from the minds of all people” in order to bring an end to casteism.

“The two main aims of the religious text is to establish Brahmin supremacy and to control women,” he said.

Actress-politician Khusbhu Sundar, who joined the BJP not too long ago, was quick to slam him, by saying that Thirumavalavan had hurt the sentiments of women by “calling them prostitutes”.

Activists supporting Thirumavalavan have argued that Khusbhu “shot the messenger” as he did not call women prostitutes, but it is Manusmriti that does so.

European Union Periyar Ambedkar Comrades Federation issues a statement making it clear that @thirumaofficial words about Periyar and position of women in the Manusmriti were maliciously edited out of context by right wing Hindutva groups. Thanks Comrades. @VijayThamil pic.twitter.com/hpfs8butPU

— Meena Kandasamy (@meenakandasamy) November 3, 2020

Irrespective of all that, proponents continue to defend the text saying it has moral values. “If a married woman thinks of somebody else, it tantamounts to prostitution. This is what is said in the ninth chapter. What is wrong in it? It is necessary to lead a moral life,” says BJP senior leader H Raja.

Claiming that he has read the Sanskrit text, Raja says there was nothing wrong in Manusmriti but there might have been mistakes in translations.

Several RSS workers told The Federal that they endorsed Manusmriti, saying every ancient text has its drawbacks and cannot be adopted in its entirety.

There are a lot of good things in Manusmriti, says a district president of RSS in Tamil Nadu.

“It is the Hindu code of law. When every religion has their own code, what’s wrong in having a separate code of law for Hindus? Just because one or two chapters is against somebody, we cannot avoid it completely. Even Thirukural has couplets about Kamathupal (sexual desire). So, can we say the whole text is against society?” he questions.

Tweaking the text

Some senior RSS workers, however, opine that certain portions in Manusmriti could be altered.

“Manusmriti is a collection of texts written by as many as 50 people. In the present day context, we cannot reach out to the masses with the old texts and there have been debates and discussions within the organisation over altering few things that were against Dalits and women. Though the discussion had died down a year ago because of our priorities, Thirumavalavan’s statement has kickstarted another round of debate within ourselves,” a senior RSS spokesperson in Chennai tells The Federal.

Raja, who defended Manusmriti, also feels that the book is not in circulation and not many are even aware of it. “It was never implemented in society and why do we even want to talk about it now,” he claims.

But contrary to Raja’s claims, Tamil Saiva Peravai’s leader Kalaiyarasi Natarajan, a native of Thanjavur, says she herself has witnessed the rules being practised in daily life.

“It was not long ago. Even after Independence, Manu’s law was followed in places where Tamil Parpanars (brahmins) lived,” she says.

Recalling her school days, Kalaiyarasi says, “During recess, if I ever approached any of the Brahmin houses nearby for water, they would simply refuse. But some Brahmin friends who used to bring water to schools did share it with me. However, they would always take back the tumbler after sprinkling water on it (purifying ritual of sorts),” she says.

Even though right-wing groups argue that the Manusmriti does not exist in the present day context, the fact that it continues to be practised in one form or the other is difficult to deny.

According to several reports, since 1950, the Supreme Court and high courts have issued at least 38 judgments quoting, citing or otherwise referring to Manusmriti.

Kalaiyarasi feels the mode of discrimination may have been changed but it still exists. “We are not saying who is doing this. We say it has become a social custom and there is a necessity to educate our children about this. But we really don’t know why a set of people are angry over it.”