Why burn Manusmriti? Why not preserve it to demonstrate, display historicity of casteism?

By Rajiv Shah 

In a significant Facebook post, Rana Singh, former associate professor of English at Patna University, has revealed something that few seem to know.

Titled "The Shudras in Manusmriti", Singh says, because Manusmriti is discussed so often, he thought of reading it himself. “This book likely dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century BCE, and the presence of contradictory statements suggests that it is not the work of a single author,” he says in his Facebook post in Hindi, written in 2022 and recently reshared.

Singh observes that, in its early portions, Manusmriti appears relatively soft toward Shudras, but as one reads further, the hostility against them intensifies. "One notable aspect is that the early portions of Manusmriti do not display extreme hatred toward Shudras," he says, offering the following quotation from the text:

> "Even from the lowliest person, one should learn excellent knowledge. One should learn the doctrine of liberation even from a Chandal (outcaste). And one may accept a virtuous wife even from a lower caste." (2/238)

Also:

> "If a Vaishya or Shudra arrives as a guest at a Brahmin's house, he should be fed religiously along with the servants." (3/112)

Singh comments, "Overall, this text reflects a transitional society moving toward rigid divisions between varnas and castes," pointing to the historical context in which this transformation might have occurred.

"Manusmriti’s goodwill towards Brahmins and Kshatriyas, along with its anger towards Shudras, indicates that it was written in an era dominated by Brahmin-Kshatriya dynasties," says Singh, adding, "These rulers had either recently seized power from the Shudras (non-Aryan people outside the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya groups) or had subjugated them through war or by crushing their rebellions."

Singh further argues, "It is also possible that, during this period, Shudras still held power in some places or even served as military commanders (judges) under Aryan kings." He cites the following verses from Manusmriti to support his point:

> "Brahmins should not reside in a country where a Shudra is the king." (4/61-62)

"The kingdom in which a Shudra serves as a judge suffers like a cow stuck in the mud." (8/21)

According to Singh, "Manusmriti harbors such intense resentment toward these non-Aryan Shudras that, while exempting Brahmins from the death penalty for any crime, it prescribes brutal punishments for even minor offenses committed by Shudras."

To support this claim, he provides the following examples from the text— a book that RSS founders once suggested should have been the basis of India’s Constitution.

• A Kshatriya who insults a Brahmin is fined 100 panas, a Vaishya 150-200 panas, but a Shudra should be given the death penalty. (8/268)
• If a Shudra contemptuously utters the name or caste of a Brahmin, a ten-inch iron rod should be thrust into his mouth. (8/271)
• If a Shudra arrogantly preaches religious teachings to Brahmins, the king should pour boiling oil into his mouth and ears. (8/272)
• If a Shudra strikes a twice-born (Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya) with any limb, that limb should be cut off. If he raises his hand or stick against a Brahmin, his hand should be cut off. If he kicks a Brahmin in anger, his foot should be severed. (8/279-280)
• If a Shudra spits on a Brahmin out of pride or urinates on him, his lips and genitals should be cut off. If he expels gas toward a Brahmin, his anus should be cut off. (8/282)

Singh continues, "The author of Manusmriti considers the killing of a Shudra to be as insignificant as the killing of animals like dogs, cats, and crows."

He cites the following verse to illustrate this:

> "The expiation for killing a cat, a mongoose, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, a lizard, an owl, or a crow is equal to that for killing a Shudra." (11/131)

Furthermore, Singh notes that Manusmriti denies Shudras the right to own property. He quotes from the text, often regarded as a Hindu law book:

> "The wealth of a Shudra consists only of dogs and donkeys. Their clothing comes from the dead. They must eat from broken utensils. Shudra women should wear only iron jewelry."

I have often wondered why people—including my friend and insightful activist with a scholarly bent of mind, Martin Macwan—insist on burning Manusmriti. While such symbolic acts represent legitimate Dalit anger against dominant caste violence, does the book not also reflect the socio-political changes that India underwent during the period of its composition?

Why shouldn’t Manusmriti be preserved to demonstrate how casteism became increasingly rigid at the time it was written—possibly by not one but several “scholars”? Does it not reveal how ancient Indian society became progressively cruel?

Indeed, the book holds historical significance and remains relevant in understanding why and how casteism should be fought. I am reminded of the museums I visited in several U.S. cities, which graphically depict the exploitation of Black people, particularly during the slave trade.

Unfortunately, those who call for Manusmriti to be burned do not seem to have considered displaying its horrors in a museum. Such a display could educate non-Dalits about the brutal treatment of Shudras and “untouchables” in ancient India.

I wonder why Mayawati, a Dalit, during her tenure as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, went to such great lengths to set up a beautiful garden with elephant statues all around but did not take the time to establish a world-class museum showcasing the exploitation of those whom B.R. Ambedkar called the "Depressed Classes" and their lives in ancient India.

Wouldn't such a museum help those campaigning internationally by drawing a parallel between untouchability and racism—something the Government of India and dominant caste groups have opposed for years?