Manusmriti- Not a Hindu
code!
- Sanjay Sonawani
Most western
scholars do not consider Hindu and Vedic religions are distinct hence their
entire perspective and understanding of Indian society go wrong. Since their assumptions are based on illusionary foundations their analysis of the Hindu religion has misguided the
entire world. They never took into consideration the alternate Hindu view
but kept on harping Vedic perspective using the Vedas as source material. Their
perspective that the Hindu religion is a later development is baseless in itself.
They ignorantly postulate that the Manusmriti is a foundation of Hindu society.
This is not a fact. Hindu and Vedic religions are separate and Manusmriti was
composed to regulate the Vedic religion…and not Hindu!
Manusmriti is vehemently
blamed for the stratification of the caste system. We can note that the
scholars have been confused Varna (class) system with the caste system
considering them one and the same while discussing the castes. It is, however,
necessary to critically analyze the Manusmriti to understand for whom the code
was intended.
Let us begin with the
early geography of the Manusmriti. The regions known to Manusmriti were Kuru,
Panchal, Matsya, and Shaursena in its early times. (Manu. 2.17-2.19) Manu did
not know the regions and people beyond Vindhya Mountain. It also did not know
Magadha or eastern regions. Manu enumerates only the known lands where early
Vedics were settled and with reverence applauds it as the region of the
Brahmarshi’s. The Brahmavart, the land they had left far behind, the land where
Sarasvati and Drishadvati flowed, Manu revered the most placing it at the
highest rank.
The code was intended to
those people who adhered to the Vedic religion which was limited to the lands
situated within the boundaries of Brahmarshi Desha. Elsewhere, various tribes
dwelled and ruled the territories enjoying their own culture and religious
practices, to which they wholesomely addressed as Shudras. Naturally, though
Manu proclaims that the code is intended for all four Varnas and intermediate
ones in its very first chapter (1.2) would have intended to the people living
in the region of Brahmarshi, comprising of five states and adhering to the
Vedic religion.
Manu has enacted many
laws against Shudras. Manu in the first chapter considers Shudras as the fourth
Varna of the Vedic system. Yet Manu states that the Shudras could be anywhere.
Also, Manusmriti proclaims that
“Let
him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Sudras, nor in one which is
surrounded by unrighteous men, nor in one which has become subject to heretics,
nor in one swarming with men of the lowest castes.” (Manu. 4.61) We
are aware that the pre-Vedic religion that is still flowing to us was
idolatrous and mainly Tantrik in nature, to its followers Manu
calls non-religious and unrighteous. In Rig Veda also we find that the enemy
tribes are addressed in the same fashion.
Now
the question will arise that if there were kingdoms of the Shudras, they had
their own religion to which Manu calls “heretics” how could his code be
intended to them and how the Shudras could be part of the Vedic religion?
While
formulating the rules as to who cannot attend the Shraddha, Manu
enumerates various occupations, from cattle herders, physicians, traders,
temple-priests to actors or singers, however, he does not refer to them as Shudra,
though all these professions were thought to be the domain of the Shudras.
(Manu. 2.150-155) He could have done with the usage of the single term “Shudra” instead
of enumerating their various professions! If these people were not Shudras,
whom Manu treated as Shudras while making his most condemnable and hostile
laws, whether followed by the people or not?
Manu
all the time speaks of the sacred Vedas and sacrificial fires, neither temples
nor any deity that Hindus worship. His command to prohibit temple priests from
attending the Shraddha does only mean that Manu was aware that the
idolatrous religion was alien to his. However, he does not mention any god like
Shiva, Shakti, etc. those Hindu worship the most. His instructions only mention
and revere the Vedas and fire sacrifices, thus making it clear that they were
intended for the followers of the Vedic religion.
It is
grave mistake of western scholars to consider the present Hindu religion as a later
development in Vedic religion. It is not and cannot be a fact. Manusmriti and
other Vedic texts do not support such an ignorant claim. Vedic religion was an
independent development in the Indian subcontinent which remained aloof from the
dominating local religion though they needed their patronage and assistance in
their routine life. They created strict codes to save their religion from
the encroachment of local religion. The hatred against religious pollution was
deeply rooted in their mindset which reflects in various codes.
Manu
was aware of the codes and philosophies that were non-Vedic. He denounces them
and threatens no reward after death if followed by any. (Manu. 12.95-96) It
was but natural for Manu as he was advocating his Vedic religion and thus it
was necessary to him to denounce all other religious codes, traditions, and
philosophies that were not based on the Vedas. Important here is Manu
acknowledges the existence of non-Vedic codes and philosophies.
Most
importantly, to Manu, the clans like Paundra, Aundra, Dravida, Camboja, Yavana,
Shaka, Pahlava, China, Kirata, Darada, and Khasha are Shudras. (Manu. 10.44) Manu reasons,
these clans reached lower positions because they violated the code and omitted
the sacred rites. It is clear that Manu here includes indigenous as well
foreign clans in the Shudra category, no matter what religion they belonged to.
The fact remains that these clans couldn't have been part and parcel of the
Vedic religion as fourth Varna and still, they are called as Shudras. Why this
anomaly in Manusmriti would have arisen?
Manusmriti
did not know these clans when the code had begun its formulation. The geography
of the Manusmriti was limited to five regions. The spread of the Vedic religion
was so much so limited at that time that the Vedics did not know the people
living elsewhere, thus referring to them wholesomely as Shudras. Later on,
gradually, they not only came to know the various clans delving in the country but also realized that they had their own identities; still, they went on addressing
them as Shudras. Shudra, in fact, became a designation of the people who were
not Vedic. It was impossible that these non-Vedics, Shudras, would have given
any heed to the commands of the alien religion! And they did not as the history
evidences it.
They
came to know the people like Dravida, Aundra, Paundra only after the first century
AD. Shakas and Kushanas were ruling the parts of the country by that time.
Since there was no question of their being Vedic anytime in their history, how
could they have been degraded because they violated the sacred code of the
Vedics? In all this was just a boastful proclamation studded with Vedic
supremacist approach to show their religion was ancient and once all belonged
to it. Even so, the fact remains this code couldn’t have been intended
for them, though they were designated as Shudras.
The
geography of early Vedics had expanded to the Magadha region in later times. We
find some presence of this religion in the times of Buddha and Mahavira.
However, it is not a fact that Buddha and Mahavira’s religion arose to oppose
Vedic doctrine. It was not necessary because the presence of this religion was
limited and was not considered a threat by the local religious atmosphere.
Johannes Bronkhorst clearly states that Buddha’s message was not a reaction
against Brahmanical thought and culture.
(Buddhism in Shadow of Brahmanism by Johannes Bronkhorst, Brill, 2011,
page 3)
From
the society the Samana tradition arose it was not Vedic but was the follower of
the local idolatrous Tantrik religion. It is a misconception that is nourished by
the western scholars due to which Vedic religion appears larger than its real
minority presence. Buddha and Mahavira did not belong to the Vedic religion and thus
were not belonging to the Kshatriya clan as largely assumed. Rather it was a later
development in Buddhism and Jainism after Vedic elements penetrated the mythology
and doctrine of the Vedic religion during the Gupta era.
None
of the clan of India belonged to the Vedic religion anytime and hence there was
no question of their being degraded because of omission of the sacred rites or
violation of the code. The Vedic religion was new to this land, however, the
proclamation just was sort of an explanation that could be used as propaganda
to attract non-Vedics to their fold. The Aundra, Poundras, Dravidas, etc.,
the mighty clans of southern India, hardly had heard about this religion
till the first century AD. Only two inscriptions of Satvahanas indicate that this
religion was known to them, but Gatha Saptashati, an anthology of this period,
does not show the existence of the adherents of this religion in contemporary society!
It is ridiculous to think that the instructions of Manusmriti would be ever
applicable to them. The fact is these rulers seem to have hardly entertained
Vedic religion in their domain. Vedics had to work hard to get entry into
every region of India and still they could not convert all to their fold
because of the inherent limitations of their religion.
The
historical fact is the code of Manu was completely neglected by the so-called
Shudra masses as they continued to follow their independent idolatrous religion
and their own code. In fact, though Manu kept on insisting on the Vedic rites and
sacrifices, the new converts forced many Vedics to adopt idol worship though it
was not part of the Vedic religion ever. Rather idolatry was condemned and
prohibited. If Manusmriti was so much so powerful to change and command entire
social order, the Vedics wouldn’t have dared to commit such blasphemy that was
disastrous to the core of their religious tenets. But the reality is the Vedics
were forced to change the core of their religion and yet how boastfully the
Vedic supremacy was proclaimed!
The
fact must be understood that Manu (and his co-authors of later times) were the
representatives of a religion that boasted of the supremacy of the Vedas and
twice-born to make feel others inferior. It cunningly tried to show all mankind
been sheltered under one roof and still humiliated those who had not converted.
To Manu, once everyone was Vedic and those deviated from the code and
rites were fallen to the lowest rank and hence despicable. Every religion for
that matter behaves in a similar way with the other. Many of Manusmriti’s
instructions and explanations are imaginary, crooked, contradictory and
confusing only because the writers of various times did not know how to
confront new situations that arose while spreading the religion and the
opposite principles that were carried in by the converts. In fact, Vedic
religion got heavily polluted in this process which reflects well from the
contradictory and yet stringent instructions that were inserted from time to
time in the original script of Manusmriti.
In
fact, if studied carefully, Manu originally is clear in his commands. He knows
to whom commands are intended and to whom not. He explicitly states, “Vedas,
Smritis, the custom of virtuous men and one’s own pleasures is the defined
fourfold religion.” (Manu-2.12) and in the earlier verse, Manu states, “Every
twice-born man, who, relying on the institutes of dialectics, treats with
contempt those two sources of the law, must be cast out by the virtuous, as an
atheist and a scorner of the Vedas.” (Manu-2.11) His address is to
the people who faithfully adhere to the Vedic principles and revere the
Vedas. All other faiths opposite to Vedic principles are despicable to Manu to
which he calls heretics. We are aware that the pre-Vedic religion of India was
based on Tantras to which we call today Hindu religion. The commands of Manu
are more strict for the three Varnas and contemptuous and humiliating for
Shudras. Every religion in a similar way has given commands against the people
of opposing faith. It does not mean that the day-dreaming vicious commands
would be followed by the others.
Here
we come across a serious juncture where Manu defines the Vedic religion that
finds the source in the Vedas and virtuous conduct of the twice-born men.
He threatens the twice-born men of being outcast if they do not respect the
Vedas and the laws. Manu also might have felt an imminent threat that the
people of his religion could deviate from Vedicism and embrace the religion of
Shudra if not stopped by divine command! The contempt for Shudra, too, could
have been the outcome of this threat.
The
twice-born are just three Varnas and the Shudra is not covered in this command
because they are not Vedics, because they are not twice-born. They had their
temples and priests and several professions to conduct for livelihood as is
evident from the second chapter of Manusmriti. They are not expected to respect
the Vedas, instead, they are forbidden. In fact, there are Vedic
Brahmins those perform the sacrifices for the Shudras on fees. Manusmriti
verse 3.178 proclaims that “The
giver (of a Sraddha) loses the reward, due for such a non-sacrificial gift, for
as many Brahmanas as a (guest) who sacrifices for Sudras may touch
(during the meal) with his limbs.”
And at another hand, we find the instructions like-
1. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper
Varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91)
2. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote
something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas
with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II.31)
3. Shudra who insults a twice-born man with gross
invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII.
270.)
4.
Shudra is unfit to receive an education. The upper Varnas should not impart
education or give advice to a Shudra. It is not necessary that the Shudra
should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go
to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)
We come across so many such humiliating and infuriating
inhuman commands against the Shudras in Manusmriti. Is Manu confused while
dictating these commands? No. He is not confused. The confused lot is of the
scholars who have failed to understand the true essence of the
Manusmriti. They did not give attention to the following facts:
1. Manu admits there were Shudras Kings and the Vedic
priests those performed sacrifices for them, how they were expected to serve
the twice-born with devotion and without grumbling? How Manu could demand their
names should be contemptible? If Shudras were well in the financial position to
pay the handsome fees to the Vedic priests for conducting the sacrifices, what
about the commands of Manu that prohibits Shudras from accumulation of the
wealth?
2. They did not give attention to the changing geography
and the vast time span Manusmriti covers, which begins in Kuru-Panchal at
about 1000 BC and ends in Magadha region in Gupta era. The additions and
contradictions created by later authors to suit their time show the journey of
the Vedic religion that was gone through several adjustments,
modifications, and contractions. Still, there was no sanity on part of the
scholars not to understand that the code written in the certain region couldn't
have been applicable to all the regions of the country.
3. It is evident from Manusmriti that those all who did
not belong to the Vedic religion were Shudras to them, no matter even if they
were foreigners, ruling dynasties, or indigenous clans! Manu also was aware that
the Shudras had temples and temple priests as a part of their religion,
however, the fact remained neglected. Though the Shudras were designated with
fourth Varna, as a class, they couldnt have been part of the Vedic religion.
The fact is Vedic religion always was three-fold religion and the fourth class
always stood opposite to it with its own distinct religion and faiths. The fact
should have been noticed that only twice-born were the Vedics and not Shudras!
4. There is no evidence to show that the Shudras
were factually prohibited from education. There is no evidence to
show that the republics and Mahajanpadas of that time belonged to the Vedic
religion. Inscriptions, Numismatics and literary evidence go against the very
notion that there was ever a Vedic Age prior to the Gupta period.
5. From historical data, beginning from Pradyota of
seventh century BC till medieval era, we do not find any Vedic rulers excepting
a few dynasties like Shunga and Kanvas. If we peep into the prehistory, which
mostly is written in mythological and propagandist form, though we come across
many so-called Vedic monarchs, the stories associated with them hardly can
prove their being real Vedic. For example, Kurus and Satvatas do not
seem to have any Vedic background though they are portrayed as Kshatriyas in the
final recension of Mahabharata. The stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata have
been used to propagate Vedic religion by heavy interpolations. However, the
social values those appear even in the final versions of both the epics clearly
show underneath their non-Vedic origin.
6. Looking at the above few indicative points, writing such hostile commands to
regulate a majority society and its obeying them without raising any
protest not only sounds ridiculous but doesn’t stand on the historical grounds
as well.
It is clear that the Manusmriti was being written during this
vast span of time and one after another command against Shudras
was being added while regulating their religion, still, we do not find
non-Vedic society giving any heed to it! Then the question will arise
why the authors of the Manusmriti took so much so pain to invent hostile
commands against the Shudras? Who were they?
From close scrutiny of the Manusmriti, it clearly appears
that the commands against Shudras were intended only to the people those were
in personal service of the twice-born. They could be taken into the service on
wages, bought out or gifted to them by the patrons of the Vedic religion. Being
their close presence the Vedics feared not only pollution to their sacred rites
and habits but most importantly the fear of intermingling and creation of the
mixed Varnas. Initially, they didn’t mind the children born to Shudra
women but later on opposite too became a routine and hence they tried to
prohibit such adulterous practices between twice-born and Shudras by
formulating harsh laws and threats of social degradation of the children.
However, Mr. Vi. Ka. Rajwade states such efforts proved worthless as
inter-varna adultery and marriages did not stop. (Ref.
Radhamadhavavilasachampu, Preface) This is evident from the fact that though
the children born out of such relationships were assigned with various low
castes like Ugra, Ambashtha, Suta, Magadha, Vaideha, Parashava, etc. they were
not in practical existence. Panini do not mention any of such caste
born out of inter-varna relationships. We can trace no caste in India by these
names though the general assumption is that the caste system is very ancient
and rigid since the beginning.
It only does mean that though the Smriti tried its best to
maintain the original structure of their religion pure and unadulterated, they
failed in doing so.
Making harsh laws, at the least on paper, against the menial
class that was dependent for subsistence on the twice-born were easy. Being
scattered and already pauper they wouldn’t revolt. At the most, they could
leave the service and find other ways for survival. However, we do not find any
instance of real execution of such commands. What we have are few
imaginary stories those are nothing but the fine example of the exaggerations
that were used to create moral fear among this class.
It is important to note that Panini classifies the Shudras in
two categories, i.e. “Anirvasit” and “Nirvasit” (Ashtadhyayi, 2
: 4-10) Anirvasit means the Shudras that were taken into the private
services of the Vedics and Nirvasit means the Shudras that were not related to
the Vedic community in any way. This categorization of Panini throws a
clear light on the enigmatic question, for whom the code was really
intended? The code was intended for the Anirvasit Shudras who were in the
services of the Vedic people. Those who were Nirvasit Shudras had nothing to do
with the code and the history supports this being a fact.
Also, Manu sometimes uses the term Arya to refer to twice-born and Anarya for Shudras. (Manu: 10. 66-68, 73) This distinction
clearly indicates the religious differences between the both. The
religion of the Aryas and Anaryas couldn’t be one and the same. The
religion of twice-born Vedic and the Shudras couldn’t be the same. The
ritualistic practices of the Shudras are clearly mentioned by Manu. They used
to go to the temples and had their own priests whereas the Vedics conducted
fire sacrifices and upheld supremacy of the Vedic doctrine. There was
nothing in common between them except for they had to employ some people from
the Shudra community as the Vedics were too less in number and needed people to
work for them.
However, it seems from the annals of history that the
term “Shudra” which originally was the name of a clan, stuck to those all
who were delving in this subcontinent. Even the foreign rulers of later times
also were designated as Shudras. To Vedics, those all, who were not part of the
Vedic religion were Shudras. The code was intended only to those Shudras who
were in their personal service. Whether or not the Anirvasit Shudras remained
in the existence, the term did not vanish. The grave misunderstanding among
scholars popped up that the code was intended for all the Shudras. None
went back in the social and political history to check whether it really ever
was practiced or accepted by the people.
Manusmriti, in fact, is overrated in regards to the caste
system. It has created undue havoc and center of the hatred in Hindu
society. The code was intended to regulate Vedic religion and not of the
Hindus. The scholars did further damage by treating caste and Varna one and the
same when it was never a fact. Manu too uses the term Jati in the
tenth chapter, though in a different sense, while elaborating on the
status of the children begotten by inter-Varna marriages. Manu clearly means
their status by using the term Jati and not the professions upon which the
present caste system is based. The present rigid and immobile Jati system of
Hindu society does not find its origin in the remote past. Jatis are not the
product of the Varna system as is believed by some.
Varna and Jati are two distinct social systems belonging to
different two religions. The scholars have failed to understand the Hindu
religion does not at all find its source in Vedas and Smritis. It has
independent tradition and religious practices and philosophies,
Manu too evidences this. The scholars heavily have neglected various
dictates of the Manusmriti that go contrary to their postulations. They have
forgotten that certain words are used in a different sense in
different societies. Manusmriti is a work of many authors of different times
and all the while the authors knew very well to whom their commands were
intended. These are the scholars who failed to understand this and thus
couldn’t solve the riddle of the caste system.
We can safely conclude that the Manusmriti was intended to
regulate only the Vedic religion. The commands those appear against Shudras
were limited to the people those were non-Vedic and in service of the Vedic
people. Rest of the people, those were designated as Shudras by the Vedics, in
fact, belonged to the various clans and preserved their identity by their clan
name and occupations. The donation inscriptions of the Satvahana era evidences
the fact that the people of those times too preferred to identify themselves
by their profession. Rather the term Shudra is absent wherever the people have
given their own identifications. The scholars should have noticed this bare
fact that the Vedic and Hindu religions are two distinct entities and they
shouldn’t have mixed them both!
T The usage of the term Shudra for all those who were not
adherents of the Vedic religion, which otherwise is absent from the entire Rig
Veda, clearly indicates that the Vedic religion was alien to the
subcontinent. The term Shudra was not a new invention. It was the name of a
tribe and yet scholars failed to understand why this term was made applicable
to all the tribes that delved in the country from ancient times. They did not
attempt to draw a map of the advances of the Vedic religion in the country and
its timeline. Had they done so, a crucial problem would have been solved.
However, the fact is the term Shudra have created an
inferiority complex in Hindu society. Without even knowing that the term
Shudra finds no etymology in any language still it has cast an evil spell over
the society, so much so that the many communities have been jumped in a rat
race to get connected with the some or other higher Varna, to attain higher
social status, no matter whether Vedic religious authorities accept it or not!
Albeit, they will not because Hindus are not Vedic!
The caste system is not like a pyramid as is believed. The Vedic religion is a
threefold pyramid whereas the Shudras (Hindu) stand independently with their
own traditions, religion and independent social order.
This should clarify that the Hindu religion is distinct.
Vedic religion was and is an independent religion. There is no relation between
the both though they now have been considered one and the same though it is not
a fact. Even in the social atmosphere, the distinction is demarcated by the terms
like Abhijan- Bahujan. Here Abhijan always are Vedics whereas Bahujan always
stands for Hindu!
-Sanjay Sonawani
