Manusmriti

The Manusmṛti (), also known as the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra or the Laws of Manu, is one of the many legal texts and constitutions among the many ' of Hinduism.

In 1776, Manusmriti became one of the first Sanskrit texts to be translated into English (the original Sanskrit book was never found), by British philologist Sir William Jones. Manusmriti was used to construct the Hindu law code for the East India Company-administered enclaves.

Nomenclature

The title Manusmriti is a relatively modern term and a late innovation, probably coined because the text is in a verse form.

Chronology

Philologists Jones and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, in the 18th century, dated Manusmriti to around 1250 BCE and 1000 BCE respectively, which, from later linguistic developments, is untenable due to the language of the text which must be later than the late Vedic texts such as the Upanishads, themselves dated a few centuries later, around 500 BCE. Later scholars shifted the chronology of the text to between the 1st or 2nd century CE. Olivelle adds that numismatic evidence and the mention of gold coins as a fine suggest the text may date to the 2nd or 3rd century CE. However, the majority of scholars agree that it was composed sometime between 200 BCE and 200 CE.

Most scholars consider the text a composite produced by many authors put together over a long period. Olivelle states that the various ancient and medieval Indian texts claim revisions and editions were derived from the original text with 100,000 verses and 1,080 chapters. However, the text version in modern use, according to Olivelle, is likely the work of a single author or a chairman with research assistants.

Manusmriti, Olivelle states, was not a new document - it drew on other texts, and reflects "a crystallization of an accumulated knowledge" in ancient India. Its contents can be traced to Kalpasutras of the Vedic era, which led to the development of Smartasutras consisting of Grihyasutras and Dharmasutras. The foundational texts of Manusmriti include many of these sutras, all from an era preceding the common era. Most of these ancient texts are now lost, and only four have survived: the law codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasishtha.

Structure

The ancient version of the text has been subdivided into twelve Adhyayas (chapters), but the original text had no such division. The text covers different topics, and is unique among ancient Indian texts in using "transitional verses" to mark the end of one subject and the start of the next. The first 58 verses are attributed by the text to Manu, while the remaining more than two thousand verses are attributed to his student Bhrigu.

Sources of the law

The Dharmasya Yonih (Sources of the Law) has twenty-four verses and one transition verse.<br />

Translation 2: The root of the dharma is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself.

|Manusmriti 2.6

Other scholars point to the inconsistencies and have questioned the authenticity of verses, and the extent to which verses were changed, inserted or interpolated into the original, at a later date. Sinha, for example, states that less than half, or only 1,214 of the 2,685 verses in Manusmriti, may be authentic. Verses such as 3.55–3.62 of Manusmriti, for example, glorify the position of women, while verse such as 9.3 and 9.17 do the opposite. Other passages found in Manusmriti, such as those relating to Ganesha, are modern era insertions and forgeries. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the verses from 3.55–60 may be about respect given to a woman in her home, but within a strong patriarchal system.

Nelson in 1887, in a legal brief before the Madras High Court of British India, had stated, "there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the Manu Smriti itself, and that these contradictions would lead one to conclude that such a commentary did not lay down legal principles to be followed but were merely recommendatory in nature." Mahatma Gandhi remarked on the observed inconsistencies within Manusmriti as follows:

Commentaries

There are numerous classical commentaries on the ' written in the medieval period.

Bhāruci is the oldest known commentator on the '. Kane places him in the late 10th or early 11th century, Olivelle places him in the 8th century, and Derrett places him between 600 and 800 CE. From these three opinions we can place Bhāruci anywhere from the early 7th century CE to the early 11th century CE. Bhāruci's commentary, titled Manu-sastra-vivarana, has far fewer number of verses than the Kullūka-Calcutta vulgate version in circulation since the British colonial era, and it refers to more ancient texts that are believed to be lost. It is also called Raja-Vimala, and J. Duncan M. Derrett states Bharuci was "occasionally more faithful to his source's historical intention" than other commentators.

Medhātithi's commentary on ' has been widely studied. Scholars such as Buhler, Kane, and Lingat believe he was from north India, likely the Kashmir region. His commentary on Manusmriti is estimated to be from 9th to 11th century.

Govindarāja's commentary, titled Manutika, is an 11th-century commentary on Manusmriti, referred to by Jimutavahana and Laksmidhara, and was plagiarised by Kullūka, states Olivelle.

Nārāyana's commentary, titled Manvarthavivrtti, is probably from the 14th century and little is known about the author.

Significance and role in history

In ancient and medieval India

Scholars doubt Manusmriti was ever administered as law text in ancient or medieval Hindu society. David Buxbaum states, "in the opinion of the best contemporary orientalists, it [Manusmriti] does not, as a whole, represent a set of rules ever actually administered in India . It is in great part an ideal picture of that which, in the view of a Brahmin, ought to be law".

Donald Davis writes, "there is no historical evidence for either an active propagation or implementation of Dharmasastra [Manusmriti] by a ruler or any state – as distinct from other forms of recognizing, respecting and using the text. Thinking of Dharmasastra as a legal code and of its authors as lawgivers is thus a serious misunderstanding of its history". Other scholars have expressed the same view, based on epigraphical, archaeological and textual evidence from medieval Hindu kingdoms in Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, while acknowledging that Manusmriti was influential to the South Asian history of law and was a theoretical resource.

Outside India

The Dharma-sastras, particularly Manusmriti, states Anthony Reid, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia and Java-Bali (Indonesia) as the defining documents of the natural order, which kings were obliged to uphold. They were copied, translated and incorporated into local law code, with strict adherence to the original text in Burma and Siam, and a stronger tendency to adapt to local needs in Java (Indonesia)". The medieval era derived texts and Manusmriti manuscripts in Southeast Asia are, however, quite different than the "vulgate" version that has been in use since its first use in British India. The role of then extant Manusmriti as a historic foundation of law texts for the people of Southeast Asia has been very important, states Hooker.

In British India

Prior to the British colonial rule, Sharia (Islamic law) for Muslims in South Asia had been codified as Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, but laws for non-Muslims – such as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis – were not codified - both in regions of the subcontinent that witnessed anything up to 600 years of Islamic rule - as well as others. With the arrival of the British colonial officials, Manusmriti played a historic role in constructing a legal system for non-Muslims in South Asia and early Western perceptions about the ancient and medieval Indian society. The East India Company, and later the British Crown, sought profits for its British shareholders through trade as well as sought to maintain effective political control with minimal military engagement. The existing legal texts for Muslims, and resurrected Manusmriti manuscript thus helped the colonial state sustain the pre-colonial religious and political law and conflicts, well into the late nineteenth century.

For Muslims of India, the British accepted sharia as the legal code for Muslims, based on texts such the al-Sirjjiyah and Fatawa-i Alamgiri written under sponsorship of Aurangzeb. For Hindus and other non-Muslims such as Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis, this information was unavailable.

The British colonial officials, however, mistook the Manusmriti as codes of law, failing to recognise that it was a commentary on morals and law and not a statement of positive law. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im states the significance and role of Manusmriti in governing India during the colonial era as follows (abridged),

Comparison with other dharmasastras

Along with Manusmriti (Manava Dharmasastra), ancient India had between eighteen and thirty six competing Dharma-sastras, states John Bowker. According to Ghose and other scholars, evidence suggests that Yajnavalkya Smriti was the more referred to text than Manu Smriti in matters of governance and practice. This text, of unclear date of composition but likely to be a few centuries after Manusmriti, is more "concise, methodical, distilled and liberal". According to Jois,

Jois suggests that the Yajnavalkya Smriti text liberal evolution may have been influenced by Buddhism in ancient India.

Controversies

The Manusmriti has been a subject of significant debate due to its prescriptions regarding social hierarchy, particularly its views on women and Shudras (often associated with lower castes or untouchables in later interpretations). These views have sparked criticism for promoting inequality, while some scholars argue they reflect the socio-cultural context of ancient India.

Views on Women

The Manusmriti outlines specific roles and restrictions for women, emphasizing their dependence on male relatives. In Chapter 5, Verse 148, it states, "In childhood, a female must be protected by her father, in youth by her husband, and when her lord is dead then by her sons; a woman should never be independent." This verse, among others, has been criticized for endorsing patriarchal control and limiting women's autonomy. Chapter 9, Verse 3 further prescribes that women should be guarded to ensure their chastity, which some modern scholars interpret as restricting women's agency. However, defenders of the text, such as traditionalist scholars, argue that these injunctions aimed to protect women within the social framework of the time, though such interpretations are contested.

Feminist scholars, such as Kumkum Roy, have highlighted that the Manusmriti’s emphasis on women’s subordination contrasts with other ancient Indian texts, like the Rigveda, which depict women in more varied roles. Critics argue that these prescriptions contributed to rigid gender norms in later Indian society, influencing practices such as early marriage. It restricted property inheritance rights for women (Chapter 9, Verses 118–120) but seems to be contradictory to the verses 130, 133 & 134 which supports daughters in property inheritance.

Views on Shudras

The Manusmriti assigns Shudras the role of serving the three higher varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) and imposes significant restrictions on their social and religious participation. Chapter 8, Verse 410 states, "A Shudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it?" Additionally, Chapter 10, Verse 129 prohibits Shudras from studying the Vedas or performing certain rituals, reinforcing their subordinate status. These verses have been widely criticized for institutionalizing caste hierarchy and justifying the marginalization of Shudras, often equated with untouchables in later caste practices.

Modern scholars, such as B.R. Ambedkar, have condemned these prescriptions as foundational to caste oppression, with Ambedkar famously burning copies of the Manusmriti in 1927 to protest its influence on caste discrimination. Conversely, some traditionalist scholars argue that the text’s rules were context-specific and not intended to dehumanize Shudras, but rather to organize society functionally. Critics counter that such interpretations fail to address the systemic exclusion embedded in the text.

Modern Reception and Criticism

The Manusmriti’s views on women and Shudras have fueled debates about its relevance in contemporary India. Reformers like Ambedkar and feminist movements have cited the text as a source of social inequality, advocating for its rejection or reinterpretation. In contrast, some Hindu revivalist groups view the Manusmriti as a sacred legal text, though they often emphasize its ethical teachings over its controversial social prescriptions. Scholars like Patrick Olivelle note that while the Manusmriti was influential in shaping ancient Indian law, its practical application varied across regions and eras, and its authority was not universal.

Editions and translations

Ganganath Jha, Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, 1920,
J. I. Shastri (ed.), Manusmriti with Kullukabhatta Commentary (1972–1974), reprinted by Motilal Banarsidass, .
Pranjivan Harihar Pandya (ed.), Manusmriti; With a commentary called Manvarth Muktavali by Kullooka Bhatt, Bombay, 1913.
Ramacandra Varma Shastri, Manusmr̥ti: Bhāratīya ācāra-saṃhitā kā viśvakośa, Śāśvata Sāhitya Prakāśana, 1997.
The Institutes of Hindu Law: Or, The Ordinances of Manu, Calcutta: Sewell & Debrett, 1796.