I argue however that, when this 2026 defence of ancient Hindu jurisprudence is placed alongside Mahmood’s long-standing jurisprudential positions—most notably his January 11-24, 1986 Frontline interview during the Shah Bano controversy—a consistent ideological trajectory emerges.

Far from a progressive effort to humanise legal history, Mahmood’s intellectual framework represents a sophisticated defence of systemic patriarchy. Across four decades, his legal logic systematically rebrands female subordination as benevolent care, denies women’s non-monetary economic contributions, and reduces women to perpetual financial and social liabilities who require lifelong male custodianship.

A foundational pillar of Mahmood’s legal philosophy is the absolute rejection of women’s independent economic agency within the marital unit. In his January 11-24 1986 Frontline interview (“Secularism on the Bend”), Mahmood forcefully criticised the Supreme Court’s ruling (April 23, 1985) in Mohammed Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum, which had granted a meagre maintenance allowance to a 73-year-old divorced woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mahmood argued that Shah Bano (1916-1992) was not entitled to maintenance from her former husband because she was an affluent woman with three adult, solvent sons—one of whom was a practicing lawyer. Under his interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence, the primary financial liability to support an elderly mother falls squarely upon her male offspring rather than her former spouse, regardless of the duration of the marriage.

When directly (and publicly) challenged on whether a wife’s decades of domestic labour, childcare, and household management constitute an economic contribution to the marriage that justifies post-divorce support or a share in marital property, Mahmood’s response was unambiguous. He rejected the “Western concept of matrimonial property”, asserting that in India, an uneducated or homemaker wife does not make an economic contribution. Instead, he explicitly declared her to be a financial burden: “How is that an economic contribution? On the contrary, she is a liability. She needs to be maintained in any case”. He went so far as to claim that a wife could only legally demand financial compensation for her domestic services if she formally declared herself an “employee” or an “agent of the husband” rather than a mother.

This worldview is far from an isolated legal quirk; it aligns directly with a broader, long-standing tradition of South Asian patriarchal instructional literature designed to socialise women into absolute domestic servitude. A prime historical example is Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s reformist handbook Bihishti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments, 1905). Written at the turn of the twentieth century as an instructional guide for Muslim women, Thanwi’s text systematically constructs a piety centered on female self-effacement, unquestioning submission, and absolute obedience to the husband. In Bihishti Zewar, a wife is instructed that her religious duty and spiritual salvation depend on serving her husband as her earthly lord—enduring his tempers without complaint, prioritizing his comfort over her basic needs, and viewing her presence in the household as an act of perpetual devotion.

What Thanwi codified as religious virtue in 1905, Mahmood “secularised” and operationalised as legal jurisprudence in 1986 and 2026. In both frameworks, the woman’s internal value is tied entirely to her domestic utility, while her structural status is reduced to an uncompensated, obedient dependent. Thanwi’s theological insistence that a woman must endure systemic domestic inequity in exchange for heavenly reward seamlessly mirrors Mahmood’s legal assertion that an uneducated homemaker generates no economic value and remains merely a financial liability.

Decades later, in his September 2026 analysis of the Manusmriti, Mahmood deploys this exact same paternalistic logic. By equating the verse’s prescription of lifelong male guardianship with modern maintenance obligations, Mahmood once again reduces female existence to an inherent financial dependency. In all these contexts—whether examining Thanwi’s reformist didactic manuals, classical Sanskrit codes, or medieval Islamic jurisprudence—there is a shared refusal to recognise women as equal economic or legal partners in a household. A woman’s labour inside the home is dismissed as non-existent or dutifully owed, her status is framed as an inherent liability, and her entitlement to survival is made contingent upon the paternalistic charity of male guardians.

This institutionalised denial of agency seamlessly informs Mahmood’s defence of structural male dominance and the restriction of female self-determination. In his discussion of divorce law, Mahmood attempted to construct a facade of gender parity by claiming that Islamic law grants equal rights of unilateral dissolution to both men and women. He argued that a woman can unilaterally discard her husband through khula just as a man can through talaq, and that seeking a judicial decree is merely a confirmatory remedy against male chauvinism rather than a structural requirement.

Yet, this assertion conveniently glossed over the severe, asymmetrical financial penalties embedded in the process. While a man pronouncing talaq retains his assets and merely pays the agreed mehr (dower), a woman initiating khula is legally required to forfeit or return her mehr. When pressed on how an economically dependent, illiterate woman could realistically exercise this right without facing total destitution, Mahmood shifted the entire burden back onto women and their families, insisting that financial terms should have been negotiated in the nikahnama (marriage contract) prior to the wedding. When reminded that young girls and illiterate women rarely possess the agency or leverage to negotiate such contracts, Mahmood dismissed the widespread grievances of Muslim women’s rights groups who characterized personal laws as instruments of oppression, attributing their critique to sheer “ignorance of law”.

This pattern of dismissing female agency culminates in Mahmood’s semantic reinterpretation of classical patriarchal texts. In his 2026 Indian Express column, Mahmood attempts to sanitize the phrase na stri swatantrayamarhati—traditionally translated by both classical commentators and colonial scholars as “a woman does not deserve independence”—by translating it as “never left unprotected”. In doing so, he deliberately conflates the denial of autonomy with an act of paternalistic devotion. By framing the institutionalized denial of female freedom as a sacred male duty of safety, Tahir Mahmood constructs an apologetic framework that shields historic patriarchy from legitimate critique.

As the historian, Mubarak Ali observes in his critical study “Behishti Zewar Aur Aurat” (in his Urdu language book, Tareekh Aur Aurat, 1993), textually mandated codes of female conduct invariably function to “confine the woman within the domestic sphere while sanctifying her subjugation as moral virtue”, and that such normative texts manipulate legal and religious rhetoric to stripping women of independent agency under the guise of protecting tradition.

When read together, Mahmood’s writings across forty years (1986 and 2026) reveal a cohesive, conservative worldview that normalises gender hierarchy under the guise of legal protectionism. Whether relying on didactic texts like Bihishti Zewar, or opposing the Supreme Court’s secular intervention (1985) in Shah Bano, or reinterpreting the Manusmriti for a modern readership, the core thesis remains unchanged: women do not require constitutional equality, independent legal agency, or economic recognition; they merely require male oversight. By recasting the denial of independence as an act of care and framing female domestic existence as a financial liability, Mahmood, relying upon the same rhetorical sleight of hand, provides an intellectual defence of systemic misogyny that ensures women remain perpetual wards of male authority. In both instances (Indian Express, Sept 1, 2026, and Frontline, January 11-24, 1986), systemic misogyny and the denial of gender justice are sanitized as reverence for scriptural tradition and personal law, reducing female autonomy to a negotiable casualty of cultural preservation.

(The author teaches Modern and Contemporary Indian History at the Aligarh Muslim University. His X handle is: @sajjadhist)

Related:

Muslim women will define their own lives & choices: Bebaak Collective responds to Kerala cleric

“Balancing Principles”: Are Hindutva far-right supporters and Muslim illiberalism often cosy bedfellows?

The post Four decade-long misogyny of a law academic? Tahir Mahmood’s defence of Manusmriti echoes in his criticism of the 1985 Shah Bano verdict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Constitution was never conceived merely as a framework for governing an independent nation. Constitutional historian Granville Austin famously described it as an instrument of a “social revolution”; a document intended to transform Indian society by replacing entrenched hierarchies with the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. This distinction lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the place of ancient Indian texts such as the Manusmriti in legal education.

Socio-political critic and columnist Solomon Mubash argues in his recent essay, From Constitutional Morality to Brahmanical Logic: Judicial Violence and Power, that the controversy extends far beyond curriculum design or the study of history. Instead, he contends that it reflects a deeper contest over the moral and ideological foundations of the Indian republic. Whether or not one agrees with every aspect of his argument, the questions he raises extend far beyond the classroom.

At stake is not whether students should read the Manusmriti. Any serious student of law, history, religion or sociology must engage with texts that have shaped the intellectual traditions of the subcontinent. The real question is how such texts should be situated within a constitutional democracy founded on equal citizenship.

History and heritage are not the same thing.

History seeks to understand the past—its achievements as well as its contradictions. Heritage often seeks to celebrate it. Confusing the two risks turning scholarly inquiry into cultural endorsement. Ancient texts deserve academic engagement because they reveal how societies understood law, authority and social order. They do not automatically acquire normative authority simply because they are old.

The Manusmriti occupies a distinctive and contested place in India’s intellectual history. As Indologist Patrick Olivelle, whose translation remains among the most authoritative, notes, it is one of the most influential Dharmashastra texts prescribing norms of social and legal conduct. Historians have also pointed out that while its actual legal authority varied across regions and historical periods, its prescriptions articulated a social order organised around hereditary hierarchy.

The text differentiates duties, privileges and punishments according to caste and gender. Women, Shudras and those placed outside the varna order occupy unequal positions within its normative framework. Scholars including B.R. Ambedkar, Nicholas Dirks and Christophe Jaffrelot have therefore interpreted the Manusmriti as a powerful symbol of graded social inequality, even while recognising that lived social practises were often more complex than any single text could capture.

Recognising this historical reality is not an act of hostility towards Indian civilisation. It is an acknowledgement that every civilisation contains traditions worthy of preservation alongside institutions that deserve critical scrutiny.

It is precisely this distinction that informed Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s understanding of constitutional morality. In his final address to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Ambedkar warned that political democracy could not survive unless it rested upon social democracy founded on liberty, equality and fraternity. He cautioned that India was entering “a life of contradictions”, where political equality would coexist with deep social and economic inequality unless constitutional values transformed society itself.

For Ambedkar, constitutional morality was therefore not blind allegiance to a legal document. It was a civic ethic that required citizens and institutions to judge inherited customs against constitutional principles rather than treating tradition as the ultimate source of legitimacy.

His public burning of the Manusmriti during the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 has generally been understood by historians as a symbolic rejection of scriptural sanction for caste hierarchy—not a rejection of Indian civilisation itself. His later leadership of the Constitution’s Drafting Committee represented an attempt to replace birth-based status with equal constitutional citizenship.

That constitutional commitment found concrete expression in Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on specified grounds and abolish untouchability. A Dalit labourer, a Brahmin scholar, an Adivasi woman and a member of a religious minority stand equal before the law not because tradition confers equal worth upon them, but because the Constitution does.

That was the revolutionary promise of the Republic.

Mubash argues that a continuing tension exists between constitutional morality and what he describes as Brahmanical social logic. Regardless of whether one adopts that terminology, the broader constitutional question remains relevant. The tension between constitutional ideals and entrenched social hierarchies continues to surface whenever caste-based discrimination is defended in the language of tradition, women’s autonomy is subordinated to customary norms, or inherited privilege seeks legitimacy through appeals to civilisational continuity rather than constitutional principle.

The danger lies in confusing antiquity with authority. No constitutional democracy derives its legitimacy from the age of its ideas. Its legitimacy derives from the justice of its institutions.

Constitutional morality asks a different question from historical tradition. It asks not whether a practice is ancient but whether it is just; not whether it is customary but whether it respects the equal dignity of every citizen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this principle in decisions such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), holding that constitutional morality must prevail where social morality infringes fundamental rights.

Yet the constitutional transformation envisioned by Ambedkar remains incomplete. Ambedkar himself distinguished between political democracy and social democracy, warning that the former could not endure without the latter. More than seven decades after Independence, the continued incidence of caste-based atrocities, manual scavenging, honour killings and structural exclusion—documented in reports of the National Crime Records Bureau, the National Human Rights Commission and successive government agencies—demonstrates that constitutional equality has not fully displaced social hierarchy.

The response to this challenge cannot be historical amnesia. Ancient texts should be read, debated and critically examined. But they must be approached as historical artefacts rather than constitutional guides. Legal education should encourage students not only to understand what such texts prescribed but also to examine who benefited from those prescriptions, who was excluded by them, and why independent India consciously chose a different constitutional path.

Every civilisation possesses traditions worth preserving. Every intellectual tradition contains ideas worthy of study. But no tradition becomes immune from criticism merely because it is ancient.

The Constitution occupies a unique place in India’s public life because it represents a conscious normative departure from systems that assign human worth by birth. As Granville Austin argued, it sought to facilitate a peaceful social revolution through democratic institutions rather than through coercion. It is therefore not merely a legal document but an aspirational framework for building a society in which liberty is not restricted by caste, equality is not constrained by status and fraternity is not defeated by inherited divisions.

The Constitution is not a mirror reflecting India as it was. It is a blueprint imagining India as it could be, and ought to be.

The real challenge before Indian institutions is not that they have forgotten their roots. It is that they sometimes forget the purpose of the constitutional project itself. That project was never about recovering an idealised past. It was about constructing a more equal future.

The future of Indian democracy will not ultimately be determined by how frequently it invokes its civilisational inheritance. It will depend on whether its institutions continue to uphold the constitutional vision articulated by Ambedkar, embedded in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. India’s civilisational inheritance deserves careful study. Its Constitution deserves primacy. The Constitution is not the antithesis of Indian civilisation; it is arguably the Republic’s most profound civilisational achievement.

Oindrila Dasgupta is a doctoral researcher at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and teaches Social Inclusion and Journalism. Her work focuses on role of journalism in terms of social justice praxis and pedagogy in India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Beyond the Manusmriti Debate: Why Constitutional Morality Must Remain India’s North Star appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There was a section of political opinion consisting of mainly conservative Hindus and those arguing that India should become a Hindu nation; who opposed the Constitution right from the start. The views of these leaders of Hindu nationalist politics, supported by a conservative section of society were articulated in an article in Organiser, the RSS mouthpiece, which opposed the Indian Constitution; saying that there is/was nothing Indian about it and that it will not be accepted by Hindus. Savarkar, went on to (CNBC TV18) say that Manusmriti is the Constitution today. In this spirit Swami Avimukteshwaranand recently stated (Navbharat Times) that Manusmriti is “above” the Indian Constitution.

This stream is not the only one within India to undermine the Constitution by showing the primacy of ‘word of God’ or sacred scriptures as above its docrine. Maulana Mufti Shamail Nadwi made a similar statement recently. This Maulana has come to prominence in the last few days after his debate with Javed Akhtar on “Does God exist?”. In a viral clip, he asserts that “Muslims erred by accepting secularism and the supremacy of national institutions over Shariah, criticises democracy and the notion of placing the nation (desh) above religion. He questions whether believers should passively accept court verdicts conflicting with Islamic law. These statements (The Chenab Times), while presented as theological opinions, have been interpreted by critics as undermining India’s constitutional secularism and promoting religious supremacy.”[1]

While Manusmriti is a scriptural compilation representing the values of Brahmanism, the dominant stream within Hinduism, Sharia is based on multiple things. Sharia (Arabic: the path) is the Islamic legal-ethical system derived from:

“Qur’an, Hadith (sayings/actions of Prophet Muhammad), Ijma (consensus of scholars) and Qiyas (analogy)” It guides personal conduct and law, not just punishments. In practice, Sharia is interpreted through schools of jurisprudence (Sunni: Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali; Shia: Ja‘fari), so there is a diversity within the legal system of Sharia.

Out of nearly 55 Muslim majority countries it shapes the laws etc. only in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan fully. It is partly i implemented in a few other Muslim majority countries. In India it forms a base in matters of Muslim personal laws only.

So, what does one do with changing times and the social patterns, which have occurred over a period of centuries when these laws were devised? Those indulging in politics in the name of religion in India harp on bringing in the Manusmriti and countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are implementing the Sharia in entirety. In many Muslim countries it is not implemented or implemented only in part.

Can Sharia be above the Constitution as the Mufti claims? The legal luminary Faizan Mustafa in a video https://youtu.be/T8BCr27fA24 argues that in every country the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution does consider Sharia in many countries and integrates some aspects of that in the Constitutions.

So, what is the status of democratic institutions in Muslim majority countries? There are different degrees of ‘democracy’ in these countries.  At the moment many social media accounts have been criticizing Shamail for encouraging Muslims not to follow the Constitution, as an anti-patriotic act. On the other hand, many are praising the Mufti for upholding the Sharia! It is interesting to note that during the medieval period of Indian History, the Muslim Kings did not make the Sharia law obligatory for the state.

While Mufti Shamail has one opinion there are others like Asghar Ali Engineer, the foremost scholar of Islam in India; who have different idea about the role of Sharia viv a vis the Constitution. Dr. Engineer harps on Shura (Mutual consultation); to argue that democracy and related principles are possible in the contemporary World. Dr. Engineer says a Quranic concept – and modern-day representative democracy – merely a human concept – may not be exactly similar. However, “the spirit of modern democracy and the Qur’anic injunction to consult people is the same”.

As per him “New institutions keep on developing and human beings, depending on their worldly experiences, keep on changing and refining these institutions. And in the contemporary world, the concept of Shura should mean democratic process and constitution of proper democratic institutions of which elections are a necessary requirement.” The Qur’anic text not only gives the concept of Shura (democratic consultation) but “does not support even remotely any concept of dictatorship or authoritarianism”.

During India’s freedom struggle, which was based on democratic principles and aimed at democratic institutions, a very highly regarded Islamic scholar Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and a dedicated Muslim leader Khan Abdl Gaffar Khan (to name but a few) strove for the values and institutions of democratic secular country. Just a few years ago the Muslim women through the Shaheen Baug movement showed their democratic strength in protecting the community from the fear of disenfranchisement.

What is needed in contemporary times? In India as Muslims are being targeted by Hindutva politics, they have become a besieged community. The conservatism among Muslim community is on a sharp rise. The major issue confronting them is enforcement of their rights using the law and its instruments, asserting representation and accountability from modern institutions.

Even in Islam there are various streams of laws and systems of jurisprudence. Since this is part of Sharia, in that case what Sharia recommends will be another contentious issue. Since Muslims are a minority in this country, they already have Personal laws, which are again under opposition.

Today within the extreme Hindu right wing there is a dominant retrograde tendency trying to bring to fore the values of Manusmriti. Such assertions which want to bring inequality in the garb of religion are not welcome. We need to also look to some European countries where religion is on the back foot.

We are living in contradictory times. On one side human society has developed the principles of dignity and equality as represented in the UN charter and on the other religious right-wing has become stronger during the last few decades. While the Mufti may be knowledgeable in concepts of Islam, we also need to know what are the trends of contemporary society and values of democratic institutions.

[1] This controversial debate has been sharply questioned by political observers, funded as it was by the Maulana himself and his Wahyain Foundation (based in Kolkata) and the Delhi based “Academic Dialogue Forum” reportedly associated with social activist Shabnam Hashmi.

Related:

India 2025: Plight of the Christian minority

Identity issue to the fore: Vande Mataram controversy

Hindu Nationalism’s sectarian nationalism and its concept of ‘duties and rights’

The post Sharia, Manusmriti or the Indian Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We will not teach any part of Manusmriti in any form in the University of Delhi. This direction has been issued even earlier by the vice-chancellor’s office, and departments should adhere to it. The department should not have put it down in the first place following these directions,” said Singh, reported the Times of India and the Indian Express. Days earlier, the objective of the course stated that “ancient Indian society, in terms of whole and its parts, has been depicted in the texts compiled in Sanskrit known as Dharmashastra.”

Just before this announcement on X (formerly twitter), the introduction of Manusmriti was widely criticised for extoling and reinforcing social, economic and gender inequalities, had prompted in some sections of faculty members in the varsity to raise concern over the move.

University of Delhi will not teach Manusmriti text in any course of the University. ‘Dharamshastra Studies’, the DSC of the Sanskrit Department, where Manusmriti is mentioned as a “recommended reading” stands deleted. @narendramodi @PMOIndia @EduMinofIndia @dpradhanbjp

— University of Delhi (@UnivofDelhi) June 12, 2025

Interestingly, other Hindu religious texts such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and Puranas have also been included as part of the course. The paper has been introduced as a core course in the current academic session and carries four credits. It is open to undergraduate students with working knowledge of Sanskrit.

Texts such as Apastamba Dharmasutra, Boudhayana Dharmasutra, Boudhayana Dharmasutra, Vashistha Dharmasutra, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, and the Kautilya Arthashastra have been included as primary readings.

“The text has been removed from the Sanskrit department’s ‘Dharamshastra Studies’. In the future also, whenever it comes to our notice that the text has been suggested for studying, the administration will remove it,” V-C Singh told the Hindustan Times.

DU removes Manusmriti from Sanskrit course

New Delhi : On the day TOI reported that Delhi University’s Sanskrit department had included Manusmriti in the core curriculum of its ‘Dharamshastra Studies’ course, the university announced its removal on social media.
The official DU tweet stated: “University of Delhi will not teach Manusmriti text in any course of the university. ‘Dharamshastra Studies’, the DSC of the Sanskrit Department, where Manusmriti is mentioned as a ‘recommended reading’ stands deleted.” The post tagged several govt dignitaries. The inclusion of Manusmriti had sparked widespread criticism. TNN

This retraction by the university just two days after the announcement of a “new course” has led to conclusions that it was obviously widespread protests that led to the decision. On June 12, the Times of India (“Manusmriti, caste system & marriage benefits to be part of DU curriculum”) had reported how students in Delhi University will now be taught how the varna or caste system organises society, how marriage helps build a “civilised” social order, and how morals regulate individual behaviour. These lessons were to form the core of a new Sanskrit course titled Dharmashastra Studies, which has Manusmriti as a primary text.

The newspaper also said that “Manusmriti, whose proposal for inclusion in the law and history honours syllabus was earlier held back by the administration amid backlash, has made a comeback, this time as essential reading in this discipline-specific course. Alongside it, other Hindu religious texts that had drawn similar objections, such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas, have also been included in this course.”

The paper, introduced as a core course under discipline in the current academic session, carries four credits and is open to undergraduate students with working knowledge of Sanskrit. Discipline Specific Core refers to courses within a student’s chosen field of study that are mandatory for their programme.

Related:

BHU students granted bail 17 days after Manusmriti protest arrests

13 BHU students arrested and interrogated by ATS over allegation of burning Manusmriti

The post Bowing to outrage, Delhi University V-C says that Manusmriti removed from curriculum, won’t teach in future appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the event, advocate Prem Prakash Singh Yadav criticised the arrests, stating that the detention of the students was entirely illegal. As per the report of Amar Ujala, Advocate Yadav alleged that their incarceration violated Supreme Court guidelines and fundamental human rights. Advocate Yadav further highlighted discrepancies in the police records, pointing out that while three female students were apprehended on the evening of December 25, the first information report (FIR) misleadingly listed the arrest date as December 26. He assured that legal action against the officers involved in the arrest would be pursued.

Akanksha Azad, the president of the Bhagat Singh Students Morcha, addressed the press, emphasising the organisation’s long-standing commitment to fighting for democratic rights and challenging the unjust policies of the BHU administration over the past decade. She recalled an incident from the previous year, where the university and district administration allegedly shielded the accused in a gang rape case involving an IIT-BHU student. She stated that the Morcha’s persistent efforts had led to the arrest of all three perpetrators, which had exposed their organisation to retaliation. Azad argued that the recent arrests in the Manusmriti case were a part of this vendetta by the authorities.

Civil society representative SP Rai questioned the university’s apparent contradiction, noting that while BHU grants fellowships for research on the Manusmriti, it penalises discussions around the text within its premises. Rai expressed solidarity with the students, affirming that civil society stands firmly by their side. Several activists and supporters, including Ipsita, Siddhi, Katyayani, Sandeep, and Mukesh, also participated in the press conference.

The Bhagat Singh Students Morcha had announced plans for another press conference to further address the fabricated charges levelled against the students. Advocate Prem Prakash Yadav reiterated that the allegations were baseless and made with malicious intent.

Background of the incident

The arrests of 13 individuals, including three women, associated with the Bhagat Singh Students Morcha (BSM), stem from an incident at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) on December 26, 2024. The BSM, a Marxist student organisation, had convened a discussion on December 25 to observe Manusmriti Dahan Divas, commemorating Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s symbolic burning of the Manusmriti in 1927 as a stand against caste discrimination. This event, held at the Arts Faculty, was disrupted by university officials and security personnel, leading to a confrontation. The students were accused of planning to burn copies of the Manusmriti and were forcibly detained.

The following day, an FIR (No. 523/2024) was filed against 13 BSM members by BHU Security Officer Omprakash Tiwari and Assistant Security Officer Hasan Abbas Zaidi. The FIR alleged that the students engaged in violent and disruptive activities, including pushing and assaulting security staff, during their gathering near the Arts Faculty Square. Among those arrested were nine current students and four alumni. They were charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant, outraging religious feelings through deliberate acts, rioting and attempting to commit culpable homicide.

The complaint had alleged that on December 25, a group of 20–25 BSM members gathered near the Arts Faculty at 5:30 PM with the intent to burn the Manusmriti. When approached by security personnel, the students reportedly misbehaved, assaulted guards, and caused injuries to two women security staff, Shipra Mishra and Shikha Mishra, who were hospitalised at the BHU Trauma Centre. The FIR further claims the students’ actions disrupted public harmony.

The arrested individuals were taken into custody by the Lanka Police Station. They were subsequently sent to 14-day judicial custody by the Varanasi District Court and are currently held at District Jail, Chaukaghat.

Reports from students had alleged significant misconduct during their detention. It is claimed that participants were physically assaulted, their clothing torn, and personal belongings damaged. The Proctorial Board and police allegedly issued threats, warning of repercussions for their academic and professional futures. Detainees were held overnight without access to legal counsel and reportedly beaten in custody, sustaining injuries.

As they were transported to the jail, the students protested by chanting slogans such as “Manusmriti Murdabad,” “Inquilab Zindabad,” “Jai Bhim,” and “Stop violence against students,” underscoring their resistance to what they described as state repression. The charges against the 13 individuals carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

A detailed report may be read here.

Related:

BHU students arrested for allegedly trying to burn Manusmriti remain in jail as advocates push for removal of false charges

13 BHU students arrested and interrogated by ATS over allegation of burning Manusmriti

Sexual assault at BHU: Dalit student alleged abuse, assault and attempts of forced sex against another student in hostel

IIT-BHU gangrape: 3 accused arrested, at least 2 associated with BJP IT cell of Varanasi

The post BHU students granted bail 17 days after Manusmriti protest arrests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 13 individuals—nine students and four alumni—are currently being held in District Jail, Chaukaghat. As they were shifted to jail, the students raised slogans like “Manusmriti Murdabad, Inquilab Zindabad, Jai Bhim,” and “Stop violence against students,” emphasizing their opposition to the state’s repression.

The jailed students were also interrogated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS)

Background

On December 25, a discussion was organized by the Bhagat Singh Students Front at BHU on the occasion of Manusmriti Dahan Divas. The significance of this historic day lies in the fact that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had burned the Manusmriti on this day in 1927. Members of the Bhagat Singh Students Front had gathered to discuss this topic. During the discussion, the guards of the BHU Proctorial Board came and misbehaved with the students, dragging them to the Proctorial Board office. The students were locked up there around 7:30 PM. Later, on December 26, 2024, an FIR with serious charges was filed against 13 members of the BSM, and they were arrested and sent to 14-days of judicial custody.

As per report, during this incident, the students were physically assaulted, their clothes were torn, and their glasses were broken. Any student who came to help them was also pushed, shoved, and beaten. BHU guards and the Varanasi police threatened the students with various kinds of threats, including ruining their future and warnings of retaliation. All of this took place during the ‘Manusmriti Dahan Divas’ discussion held at the Arts Faculty, BHU.

It is alleged that the police and Proctorial Board members beat up the arrested students. They were kept locked in the Lanka police station overnight and were not allowed to meet their lawyers. Reports suggest that the students suffered serious injuries during this time. Their clothes were torn, and their glasses were broken. Students who went to the Proctorial Board for help were also detained after being pushed and assaulted.

FIR registered under the serious provisions of BNS, 2023

An FIR (No. 523/2024) has been filed by the Lanka Police Station against the 13 students under sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of their duty), 121(2) (causing grievous hurt to a public servant), 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 190 (unlawful assembly for any offence committed by the group), 191(2) (rioting), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt to another person), and 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the FIR, registered on the written complaint of BHU Security Officer Omprakash Tiwari and H.A. Zaidi, it states, “On 25.12.2024, at 5:30 pm, 20-25 students associated with Bhagat Singh Chhatra Morcha were sitting near the Arts Faculty Square and lighting a fire. Confidential information was received that these individuals were celebrating Manusmriti Dahan Diwas that day and planning to burn copies of Manusmriti. Acting on this information, I, Omprakash Tiwari, Security Officer, along with my colleagues Hasan Abbas Zaidi (Assistant Security Officer), Security Inspector Bhaiyalal, and Proctorial Board members Prof. Fate Bahadur Singh, Dr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Dr. Ajay Yadav, Dr. Amresh Singh, Dr. Upendra Kumar, Dr. Divya Bharti, Dr. Ravi Shankar Mishra, along with female security guards Shipra Mishra, Shikha Mishra, and other security personnel, reached the spot and attempted to pacify them. However, the following students misbehaved and pushed us. After this, I was warned that if we took any action against the rules, further action would be taken.”

“The following students did not heed the warning and started pushing and hitting me and other people present with me, obstructing the work of the public government, due to which two of my women security personnel Shipra Mishra and Shikha Mishra got seriously injured and fainted on the spot. They are being treated at BHU Trauma Center. Their actions are having an adverse effect on maintaining harmony. A total of 13 students have been identified in this incident” as per FIR.

The arrested students include Mukesh Kumar, Sandeep Jaiswal, Amar Sharma, Arvind Pal, Anupam Kumar, Lakshman Kumar, Avinash, Arvind, Shubham Kumar, Adarsh, Ipsita Agarwal, Siddhi Tiwari, and Katyayani B. Reddy. These students have been charged under the provisions, which carry a provision for up to 10 years of imprisonment.

The FIR dated 26.12.2024 can be read here

BSM said, suppression done at the behest of Brahmanical and Hindutva forces

The President of Bhagat Singh Students Front, Akanksha Azad, termed the action taken against the students as “suppression done at the behest of Brahmanical and Hindutva forces.” While dismissing the accusations against BSM, Akanksha said that, “We deny all the fabricated allegations raised against us by the university-police nexus. They want to crush dissent and our organization. In fact, they are suppressing every civil organization that questions this RSS fascist government” as the Observer Post Reported

She said, “We are the heirs of Baba Saheb and Bhagat Singh’s thoughts. Whatever efforts are made to suppress our voice, we will stand firm even stronger.”

Akanksha alleged that the BHU administration and police took this action under pressure from fascist forces. She stated, “Sending students to jail for discussing texts like Manusmriti is like mocking democracy. Manusmriti gives women and Dalits a status worse than that of animals, and such oppressive actions cannot crush their dreams and ideas.”

The Bhagat Singh Students Front has demanded the immediate release of the arrested students. They called for the false report to be annulled immediately and FIRs to be filed against the policemen and BHU guards who used violence against the students. The organization said, “Our courage and dreams cannot be suppressed. The arrest of students on Manusmriti Day has once again proven that freedom of expression is under threat. But the people of Banaras, who have always been a land of knowledge, dialogue, and ideas, will not remain silent against this injustice.”

Akanksha claimed that the students’ mobile phones were seized, and they were not allowed to inform their families, which is a clear violation of Supreme Court and Human Rights Commission directives. On December 26, the students were presented before the remand court and sent to jail. The FIR filed includes very serious charges. This incident not only violates the students’ rights but also openly disregards judicial processes and human rights.

FIR reveals no serious allegations against students, only ideological dissent

The FIR filed in connection with the December 25 incident at BHU highlights an ideological disagreement between the students and the administration, rather than any serious criminal behavior. The report indicates that students associated with Bhagat Singh Chhatra Morcha were peacefully engaged in a discussion to commemorate Manusmriti Dahan Divas. Following confidential information, police and security officers intervened, but the situation escalated into a minor physical altercation. The FIR does not point to any major criminal activity, with injuries to security personnel attributed to the scuffle.

While the FIR claims that the students’ actions impacted public harmony, it seems more like an effort to suppress student activism rather than address any serious offense. The students were charged under serious provisions, but the allegations appear inflated, raising concerns about attempts to silence dissent.

What is Manusmriti?

Manusmriti, often a topic of controversy, especially in the context of women and marginalized communities, is seen as a symbol of caste and gender discrimination in Indian society. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously burned it in 1927 as an act of protest. Manusmriti is an ancient Hindu religious text, consisting of 12 chapters and over 2,600 verses. It was first translated into English in 1776. Maharishi Manu, considered the author, is regarded as the spokesperson for the “human constitution” and the architect of societal norms. These laws, known as “Manuism,” laid down controversial rules regarding women’s rights and freedoms.

Controversial views on women

Manusmriti outlines a societal structure where women are seen as subordinate to their father, husband, or son, and can never be independent. In Chapter 5, Verse 148, it states that after marriage, a woman should remain under the protection of her husband or sons after his death. It further asserts that women have a nature to “seduce men” and should be kept under strict surveillance.

The text also contains statements such as, “Do not marry a woman with red hair or eyes, one with extra limbs, who is often ill, or one from a low caste.” It advises against marriage to a woman whose name refers to terror, rivers, trees, or snakes. Additionally, it says that Brahmins should not eat in the presence of menstruating women, pigs, dogs, or eunuchs.

These rules deny the equality and freedom of women and attempt to subjugate them under patriarchal control. The Manusmriti has long been a source of debate, and its controversial nature highlights the ongoing fight for equality and freedom in society.

Dr. Ambedkar’s protest against Manusmriti

Due to its oppressive views, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burned the Manusmriti in 1927, condemning it as a text that violated the rights of Dalits and women. However, some still regard it as a guiding text for societal welfare, albeit ignoring its controversial aspects. Historian Kurundkar has provided insights into Manusmriti’s structure, explaining that the text was composed around 200-300 years before the birth of Christ. The first chapter covers topics like the creation of nature, the four yugas (ages), the four varnas (classes), and the greatness of Brahmins. Subsequent chapters address topics like celibacy, marriage, household duties, and various forms of punishment.

The fifth chapter, which is particularly controversial, discusses the duties of women, their purity, and their place in society. The book also covers the roles of saints, kings, criminal justice, and the praise of the Vedas in the final chapters.

Controversial aspects of Manusmriti

Dalit scholar Rajiv Lochan explains that Manusmriti discusses rights, crimes, justice, and punishment in a manner akin to the modern Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC). When the British arrived in India, they saw Manusmriti as the Hindu equivalent of Sharia law and began using it as a reference in legal matters. This led to the belief that Manusmriti was the Hindu “holy book.”

Lochan suggests that Brahmins, facing a decline in their power due to the rise of Buddhist teachings, revived Manusmriti to reassert their dominance. It propagated the myth that Brahmins were superior in society, while others faced harsher punishments. The text even asserts that a woman’s welfare can only be achieved through the welfare of a man, and that women should have no religious rights.

The British and Manusmriti’s influence

During British rule, Manusmriti became a subject of widespread discussion due to its use in legal matters. William Jones’ English translation of the text brought it into public knowledge. Mahatma Jyotirao Phule was one of the first to challenge Manusmriti, critiquing Brahmins and merchants while highlighting the dire conditions of Dalits and marginalized groups.

When Ambedkar burned the Manusmriti

On July 25, 1927, Dr. Ambedkar publicly burned Manusmriti at Mahad in Maharashtra. In his book Philosophy of Hinduism, Ambedkar writes, “Manu advocated the four-fold varna system, laying the foundation of caste-based discrimination. While Manu did not create the caste system, he certainly sowed its seeds.”

Ambedkar also recorded his opposition to Manusmriti in his works Who Were the Shudras? and The End of Caste. At that time, Dalits and women were denied the right to live a dignified life, and the caste system thrived on the Brahminical supremacy. Ambedkar described the caste system as a multi-story building with no stairs, where people are divided based on their work, and the lower castes are relegated to the bottom with no possibility of advancement.

The legacy of Ambedkar’s protest

After Ambedkar’s act of burning the Manusmriti, similar protests occurred across the country, leading to discussions in newspapers about the text’s influence on Indian society. Even after India’s independence, the debate continued. In 1970, Kanshi Ram formed BAMCEF, declaring that Indian society was divided between the “Manuwadi” (followers of Manu) and the “Mulnivasi” (indigenous people).

Related

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

A new hope: Student activists charged under UAPA get bail

Hate Unleashed: Protest erupts in Quantum University, students’ chant “Jai Shree Ram” over namaz

The post 13 BHU students arrested and interrogated by ATS over allegation of burning Manusmriti appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ruling dispensation, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), leaders within Parliament and its ideologues outside Parliament, argued that all the ills of society and violation of constitutional values began with Jawaharlal Nehru (amendment to stop hate speech), via Indira Gandhi (the Emergency), via Rajiv Gandhi (the Shah Bano Bill) to Rahul Gandhi (tearing the Bill) have been the violators of the values of Constitution.

BJP leaders and Hindu nationalist ideologues are stating that the Indian Constitution has been based on Western values, a colonial imprint on our society; it is a break from India’s civilisation and culture. They also argue that the Constitution and its application is the appeasement of Muslim minorities for vote bank purposes that has been done by the Congress party.

As we know, the Constitution was the outcome of the values that emerged during the freedom movement. It also kept in mind the long tradition of our civilisation. The understanding of our civilisation is very different for those who participated in the freedom movement, those who stand for its ideology, and those who kept aloof from the anti-colonial movement and bowed to the British rulers.

While the freedom movement saw India as a plural nation with rich diversities, those who stood aloof saw the civilisation as Hindu civilisation. For them, pluralism is a diversion and imposition by the educated, modern leaders.

Even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) combine forgets that what they call as Hindu civilisation is undermining the contributions of Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism to our civilisation. Even the interpretation of Lord Ram, their major icon, is so diverse for Kabir, who saw the Lord as a Universal spirit, for Gandhi, who saw Him as protector of all the people, irrespective of their religion in his famous: Ishawar Allah Tero Naam (Allah and Ishwar are same).

Jawaharlal Nehru saw India, Bharat Mata, in his book, The Discovery of India, as an “ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.” With great pride, he recalled the rule of Emperor Ashok, who in many edicts etched on stones, talked of equal treatment for Vedic Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivikas.

This is the core difference between the RSS combine and its ideologues who see India as exclusively Brahmanical Hindu, and those like Gandhi and Nehru, as a country belonging to all the people.

The Indian Constituent Assembly mainly represented the stream that struggled against the British, the national stream, while RSS was a marginal stream sticking to “India as Brahmanical Hindu nation”. This started getting reflected immediately after the draft of the Indian Constitution. B.R Ambedkar and Nehru were cautious and stated  that the implementation of its basic structure should be ensured by those ruling the country.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of BJP, in 1998, formed the Venkatachaliah Commission to review the Constitution. K.R. Narayanan, the then President of India, aptly remarked: “It is not the Constitution that has failed us; it is we who have failed the Constitution!”

This is so true, particularly after the rule of the Narendra Modi government (2014 onward). It is during this period that though the Constitution has not been changed as such, though many from the RSS camp have expressed their wish to do so, without getting reprimanded from the top leadership. This was most blatantly stated to back up their slogan of ‘400 Paar’ (More than 400 seats in Parliament in the 2024 elections), meaning that ‘we want so many seats so that we can change the Constitution.’

The blatant rise of hate speech, lately most clearly stated by a sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court, Shekhar Kumar Yadav, when participating in a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, saying: “The country will run as per the wishes of its majority.”

Justice Yadav made the remarks while delivering an address on “Constitutional Necessity of Uniform Civil Code”. “Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted,” Yadav said.

Worse than his stating so, has been the statement of BJP’s Yogi Adityanath, the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, who supported Yadav’ utterances. Mercifully, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of Yadav’s communal hate speech. But, who will take cognizance of Yogi supporting him?

Commenting on the current state of affairs, Justice Aspi Chinoy made a very apt comment. He said, “The BJP being the government at the Centre and having an absolute and overwhelming majority in Parliament, sees no need to alter the de jure status of India as a secular country and Constitution. Being in control of the state and its diverse instrumentalities it has been able to achieve its goal of undermining India’s secular constitution and introduce a Hindutva based ethnocracy, even without amending and altering the de jure secular status.”

This sectarianism of the ruling BJP goes back to the time when the draft of Constitution was released. A couple of days’ later, the RSS mouthpiece (unofficial) Organiser stated on November 30, 1949. “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Meaning that Manusmriti has been ignored by makers of the Indian Constitution!

The father of Hindu nationalist politics, V D Savarkar, was quoted by Rahul Gandhi while participating in debate, “The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable after Vedas for our Hindu nation and from which our ancient times have become the basis for our culture, customs, thought and practice.”

The crux of the matter comes to the surface when we compare the chief of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution, Ambedkar, and one of the RSS sarsanghchalak, K. Sudarshan. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmiriti and drafted the Indian Constitution. The RSS chief went on to label the Indian Constitution as being “based on Western values” and called for the need to draft the Indian Constitution based on the Hindu Holy book!

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

The post 75 Years Down the Line, Whither Indian Constitution? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Outrage broke out among a section of netizens as news of the advertisement for a research fellowship on Manusmriti did the rounds? The Institution making this offering? Unfortunately, the once prestigious Banaras Hindu University (BHU)! BHU’s department of ‘Dharmashastra and Mimansa has put out an advertisement for a research fellowship on ‘Applicabilety of Manusmriti in Indian Society’ (sic). The selected candidate will get Rs 25,380 per month as stipend.

What is the Manusmriti?

Manusmriti, also called as Manav Dharma Shashtra, is an ancient Sanskrit law text supposed to have been composed in the early centuries of the first millennium. The text remains contested and reviled for its brazen endorsement of the caste system and women’s subjugation.

When asked if the fellowship amounts to endorsing the text, the department head Shankar Kumar Mishra told the media that since the Vedic tradition and rishis and munis have already endorsed it so there is no question of separately endorsing it. Mishra also disagreed that the law treatise sanctions caste and secondary status for women.

“A single word has multiple meanings. The word Hari can mean Lord Vishnu, monkey, frog or elephant. It depends on how you interpret it. It’s the same with these text. No religious work asks you to lie or behave badly. They all say help the weak, indulge in charity, take care of your family and so on,” he said.

Notably, Dr Br Ambedkar, who is known as the architect of India’s constitution, had burned Manusmriti in 1927 at a conference organised in Mahad, Maharashtra.

A resolution passed at the time read,

“Taking into consideration, the remarks in the Manusmriti and such other books which are most vulgar and which most flagrantly violate the human rights, this meeting condemns them emphatically and as an expression of that condemnation resolves to burn them.”

– Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol 17

Every year Ambedkarite groups mark this event by celebrating Manusmriti Dahan Divas on 25 December.

21^st Centory Irony 

“Applications are invited for the post of project fellow in the salary/stipend/fellowship/fixed/contractual of Rs 25,380 per month in a sponsored BHU IoE Scheme Initative Research Grant under Dev Scheme No-6031 entitled “Applicability of Manusmriti in Indian Society” sanctioned up to 31 March 2024,” read advertaisment by professor Shankar Kumar Mishra, head of Department of Dharmashatra & Mimansa.

The letter is dated on 17 February 2023.

The move has been critised on social media. “In new #India you are paid to study the “applicability of the Manusmriti on Indian society”! And then they try to appropriate Ambedkar….” said G Arunima, author and JNU professor.

“So now public universities are spending money to study the applicability of #ManuSmriti in Indian society. Hey Ram!” said a user.

“Casteism is alive and kicking in India under BJP. Next they might try to implement Manusmriti based Casteism in India under BJP,” read another tweet.

Related:

Row over BHU exam question on temple demolition

Right-wing attempts at targeting BHU iftar deflated!

The post Manusmriti fellowship? Join Benaras Hindu University (BHU)! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India has a political system where the executive makes the laws and rules for the country. The judiciary is meant to ensure the executive walks the path of the Indian Constitution, protecting the values it enshrines. Currently, there is a perception that the judiciary is under pressure from the executive, and that the executive is also losing its way. Some recent statements from the benches and politics have added to this perception. But the problem is deeper, as we shall see. 

Recently, Delhi High Court Justice Pratibha M Singh’s remarks were reported in the online legal journal Bar and Bench. At a business chambers’ event, she said that Indian women are a “blessed lot” and cited the reason as “our scriptures”. The religious texts always gave women “a very respectable position”, she said, citing the Manu-Smriti to make her point. According to her, this text says that if women are not respected and honoured, then other religious observances and rites have “no meaning”. “I think our ancestors and Vedic scriptures knew very well how to respect women,” she reportedly said. 

The Manu-Smriti does indeed say in verse 3/56 that where women are honoured, the gods are pleased and reside in that household. But does this assertion reflect the actual position of women in society? What Manu-Smriti says is repeated by the ideologues of Hindu nationalism, which is perhaps what the judge has encountered. However, the followers of Manu-Smriti never mention the other assertions in the book, which accord a very low social status to women. Chapter 5, shlokas 148, says, “Even in her own home, a female…should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control, as a young woman, under her husband’s, and when her husband is dead, under her sons.” 

The problem is that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently used the lexicon of patriarchy when he spoke of giving women “protection”. He said this during his recent address from the Red Fort on India’s 75th anniversary of Independence. In fact, from Savarkar to Golwalkar, the proponents of Manu-Smriti never mention that their favourite book ordains the connection between caste and gender and embodies the hierarchical values which Brahmanism upholds. In Chapter 5, shloka 149, it says, “Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god.” It also lays down a death sentence for a man of a so-called subordinate caste who has intercourse with a woman from the highest caste. Such statements as the Prime Minister’s could make us forget that during the freedom movement, women were neither fighting to protect the Manu-Smriti nor caste hierarchy nor were they seeking ‘protection’. 

There a dangerous tendency afoot to project the Manu-Smriti as a revealed text of divine origin that, therefore, cannot be challenged or changed. Such attempts create a conflict between law in the modern sense and the pre-modern religious law enshrined in religious texts. In the third volume of his Writings and Speeches, Dr BR Ambedkar also points out that the Manu-Smriti was likely penned between 170 BCE and 150 BCE, a period of attacks on Buddhism and Buddhists by the Brahmanical King Pushyamitra Shung. 

As we know, Buddhism articulated the value of equality but faced numerous assaults in India. Modern education was introduced in India during the colonial period, and social reforms started being conceptualised. That is when social reformers such as Savitribai Phule started schools for girl children and began, in a real sense, the struggle for women’s equality. Phule and Fatima Sheikh taught at the school despite multiple attacks from social conservatives who invariably followed Manu Dharma. The hostility toward Phule was so intense she was subjected to mud and cow dung attacks on her way to school. 

Ambedkar stood tall amongst those working for social equality, including the equality of women and members of all castes or social groups. His ideas were an essential feature of the national movement led by Gandhi and others, which contrasts with what the Hindu Rashtra proponents were fighting for. It must be said that nationalists who profess other religions are no different. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Taliban in Afghanistan, all echo the sentiment that women need protection. Protection here is nothing but a strategy to control women. 

Ambedkar, who later became chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, burned copies of the Manu-Smriti at a historic protest against the inequality it embodies. 

Interestingly, the communal outfits—both Muslim and Hindu—are usually exclusively male. Even today, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS has an exclusively male set-up. To widen its plan of creating a sectarian nation, it has launched the Rashtra Sevika Samiti just for women. But its name itself reveals deep-set patriarchal values—while swayamsevak means volunteer sevika means one who serves. The word swayam—which means ‘oneself’—is missing, quite in sync with Manu-Smriti’s dictate that women need to be ‘protected’ by men. 

Religious texts are notoriously opaque and given to any interpretation as a believer wishes. Anybody is free to pick and choose from religious texts at their convenience and ignore the rest. In contrast, what women demanded during the freedom movement and today is equality under the law. That is what the Constitution of India promises—removal of discrimination within the family or society and security from arbitrary action by the state or its institutions. 

It is the Constitution of India which reflects the values of the Indian freedom movement. After Phule’s time prominent figures such as Pandita Ramabai and Anandi Gopal defied taboos and fought for this idea of equality. Then, a long list of women participated in the national movement, from Sarojini Naidu to Aruna Asaf Ali and Bhikaji Cama to Usha Mehta. These and thousands of other women broke the shackles of patriarchy to become leading lights of the struggle for freedom.

India has been in the grip of caste and gender hierarchy for centuries. Overcoming it is a long struggle to which many women’s groups are dedicated. They are fighting the atrocities against women, resulting from their being accorded the second position in society. Our learned judges and politicians must understand this grave contrast in our society. On the one hand, we have Manu Dharma’s patriarchy, and on the other, Ambedkar’s Constitution upholding equality. I hope our lawyers, judges, and leaders internalise this truth as India walks the road to gender justice.

The author is a human rights activist and formerly taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post What Should Guide Us, Indian Constitution or Manu Smriti? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The current vociferous campaign for awarding Savarkar Bharat Ratn by Savarkarites claims that this Hindutva ‘Veer’ was a ‘rationalist Hindu’ a leader who ‘ended the practice of Untouchability’, propagated ‘scientific temper’ and died as an atheist. They also persist in saying that his “outlook was absolutely modern and scientific and secular”.  

It is interesting to note that such protagonists of the Hindutva politics who declare the modern times as kalyug (state of moral decay), atheists as the scum of the society, Casteism synonymous with Hinduism and call for scientific temper as a “foreign conspiracy” by Christians and Communists are glorifying these qualities of Savarkar!

However, let us compare these claims of Savarkar being a liberal person with the facts available from the Hindu Mahasabha archives, on the views of Savarkar.    
 
Savarkar wanted Manusmriti as constitution of Hindus
How could a great rationalist and a “crusader against Untouchability” and “practitioner of scientific temper Savarkar” be a firm believer in Manu’s Codes?

He held Manusmriti to be the sacred book for Hindus. As a philosopher and guide of Hindutva, and the RSS he, without mincing words, had said:
 

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law. That is fundamental.

[VD Savarkar, ‘Women in Manusmriti’ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi), Prabhat, Delhi, vol. 4, p. 415.]
 
If this dream of Savarkar, of enforcing the Laws of Manu is ever fulfilled, it is undoubtedly going to be the end of the road for Dalits and women in India. To what miserable and dehumanized status their lives will be reduced to can be known by having a glance at the Codes of Manu about them.
 
Manu’s Laws Concerning Sudras
For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds [the divine one] caused the Brahmana, the Kashtriya, the Vaisya and the Shudra to proceed from His mouth, His arm, His thighs and His feet. (I/31)

One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudras, to serve meekly these [other] three castes. (I/91)

A Shudra, who insults a high caste man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out for he is of low origin. (VIII/270)

If he [Shudra] arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)

A low-caste man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of high caste, shall be branded on his hips and be banished, or [the king] shall cause his buttocks to be gashed. (VIII/281)

Let [the first part of] a Brahmana’s name [denote something] auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Shudra’s [express something) contemptible. (II/31)

[The second part of] a Brahmana’s [name] shall be [a word] implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s [a word] implying protection, of a Vaisya’s [a term] expressive of thriving, and of a Shudra’s [an expression] denoting service. (II/32)

The service of Brahmanas alone is declared [to be] an excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (X/123)

The remnants of their food must be given to him, as well as their old clothes, the refuse of their grain, and their old household furniture. (X/125)

No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he be able [to do it]; for a Shudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas. (X/129)

Manu’s Laws Concerning Women
By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. (V/147)

In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. (V/148)

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. (IX/3)

Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations,
however, trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded,

they will bring sorrow on two families. (IX/5)

Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)

He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit. (IX/7)

As the male is to whom a wife cleaves, even so is the son whom she brings forth; let him therefore carefully guard his wife, in order to keep his offspring pure. (IX/9)

No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:
Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils. (IX/10, 11)

Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)

Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)

Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation, to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to guard them. (IX/16)

(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

[All laws are the verbatim reproduction from the F. Max Muller (ed.), The Laws of Manu, Low Price Publication, Delhi, 1996. The bracket after every code carries chapter number and code number respectively. For instance (I/31) means chapter I and code number 31 of Manusmriti.]
 
Savarkar committed to Manu Smriti
 
Savarkar remained committed to Manu’s diktats throughout his life. While delivering the presidential address to the 22nd session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Madura in 1940, Savarkar once again underlined the crucial fact of Manu being the law giver for Hindus and emphasized that once we ‘re-learn the manly lessons’ which Manu taught ‘Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable’. He firmly believed that once laws given by Manu were enforced ‘our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and conquering a race as we proved once…’⁷
[V. D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963,
p. 426. ]

Savarkarites emphasize the fact that their mentor organized community lunches with Untouchables and went to visit their residential quarters. How serious he was even in these cosmetic reformative actions can be known by the fact that he did it in his personal capacity ‘without involving the Hindu Mahasabha organization into social and religions [sic] activities not guaranteed by its constitutional limits…’⁸ [Bold as in the original text]
[A. S. Bhide, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay, 1940, p. xi. ]
 
Savarkar assured Sanatani Hindus who were opposed to Untouchables’ entry into Hindu temples in 1939 that Hindu Mahasabha,
“will not introduce or support compulsory Legislature [sic] regarding Temple Entry by the untouchables etc. in old temples beyond the limit to which the non-Hindus are allowed by custom as in force today.”
[Bhide, p. 128.]

On June 20, 1941 he once again pledged in the form of a personal assurance that he would not hurt the sentiments of Sanatani Hindus so far as the issue of entry of Untouchables in temples was concerned. This time he even promised not to touch anti-women and anti-Dalit personal laws,
“I guarantee that the Hindu Maha Sabha [sic] shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned…”
[Bhide, p.425]

Despite all the above facts and many more about the anti-modern ideas of Savarkar being available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha itself, he is being glorified as a great rationalist, secularist and believer in social justice!

The reality is that RSS/BJP rulers want Bharat Ratna for him because Savarkar had total faith in the Manusmriti and the much-hated democratic-secular Indian Constitution. Let us not forget who the author of the Constitution was: Dr BR Ambedkar! A so-called “liberal aura” around Savarkar is being manufactured so that vast majority of Indians who stand for egalitarianism and reject Untouchability are persuaded to change their opinion about this architect of not just a Hindu Theocracy but an order –in the name of Hindutva– which is synonymous with Casteism.
 

The post Savarkar wanted Manu Smruti as Constitution for Hindus appeared first on SabrangIndia.