“Don’t read Manusmriti through colonial lens”, Firstpost, 1 Sep 2026.
“A prominent politician speaking recently to students in Pune has reportedly referenced an oft-cited verse from a great religio-legal treatise of ancient India: Manusmriti, or Manava Dharmashastra. Does this verse really say something derogatory about women? For over half a century I have, as a law professor, been discussing with my students — and writing in my books — on the reality of this alleged “verdict” of the so-called “classical Hindu law” on the social status of women.
Manusmriti and similar other treatises came into existence in an era when Christianity and Islam were not born, and the word “Hindu” was unknown. Branding the general law of ancient India as “Hindu law” was the handiwork of British rulers. I often wonder: If Roman law cannot be called a Christian law, how can the ancient Indian law be described as Hindu law? The fact is that it was the traditional law of ancient India, which is the inherited cultural legacy of all Indians of the present generation.
Manusmriti speaks of dharma (divine code of conduct for human life) and adds that man is to be guided by four different sources — the shruti (divine revelation in divine language heard by sages of antiquity), smriti (the same transmitted by them from memory in human language), sadachara (practices of divinely inspired seers), and atmanastushti (what modern jurisprudence calls “good conscience”). The four holy Vedas are shruti, and Manusmriti was the first in the galaxy of a large number of smritis…………..”
Read the full article at Firstpost.
