Modern progressives love to brand Hindus as “Manuvadis.”
But have they even read Manusmriti?
Let’s dismantle their propaganda point by point.
Manu was a Kshatriya, not a Brahmin.
Why call it “Brahminical oppression” when the text wasn’t even written by a Brahmin?
Global Influence: Did you know countries like Germany took inspiration from Manusmriti for their constitutions?
Yes, that’s the depth of its wisdom.
Sanskrit Sutras: Manusmriti isn’t some random book. It’s a profound text written in sutra form. Real understanding requires a teacher.
Critics cherry-pick <1% and distort its meaning.
Have they studied it under a scholar? Doubtful.
Punishments for Brahmins: Manu suggests harsher punishment for a Brahmin than a Shudra committing the same mistake.
The text disproves their “oppression” narrative.
Respect for Shudras: Manusmriti says an elderly Shudra should be respected by kings and Brahmins alike.
How many “critics” know this?
Varnas by Deeds, Not Birth: Manu’s varna system was meritocratic, based on actions. A Shudra’s child could study the Vedas and become a Brahmin.
Examples: Maharshi Vyasa, Valmiki, Charaka, Sushruta – NONE were Brahmins by birth but shaped Hindu culture.
Ancient Governance: Manusmriti was a governance text for its era. It’s a reference, not a modern law book—just like we adapt governance with changing times.
Ambedkar’s Connection to Manusmriti: Yes, Ambedkar burned it early on. But later, he praised it for its insights and used its principles to draft the Hindu Code Bill.
Here’s proof:
Ambedkar’s Speech to the Constituent Assembly (24th Feb 1949): “Among the 137 Smritis, Yajnavalkya & Manu are of a higher standard. Manu states daughters have a right to 1/4th of inheritance.” (Manusmriti Chapter 9, Shloka 117) “All brothers must give 1/4th of their share to sisters. Those who don’t are fallen.”
स्वेभ्योंशेभ्यस्तु कन्याभ्य: प्रदद्युर्भ्रातर: पृथक। स्वात्स्वादंशाच्चतुःभागं पतिता: स्युरदित्सव:॥
Ambedkar lamented how custom overruled law. He believed if the Privy Council hadn’t prioritised custom, Manusmriti’s provisions for women’s inheritance rights would’ve empowered daughters long ago. (Writings & Speeches, Vol 14, p255)
Siddharth College Speech (11th Jan 1950): “I used Manusmriti for caste determination, Parashara Smriti for divorce, Brihaspati Smriti for women’s rights, and Manusmriti for inheritance rights.” (Collected Speeches, Vol. 8, pp. 17-18)
Parliament Speech (6th Feb 1951): “Sociologically, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs are Hindus.”
Rajaram Theater Speech (25th Dec 1952): “My bill’s critics claim it abandons Hindu scriptures. I challenge them to find a clause unsupported by Manusmriti. Women’s property should go to daughters after death, just as brothers inherit the father’s.” (Source: Janata, 3rd Jan 1953).
Manusmriti is far from the caricature its critics portray. Study it. The text is a treasure trove of wisdom adapted to its time, yet it upheld fairness, respect, and merit. Don’t let propaganda define our heritage. Read it. Understand it. Respect it.
(This article has been compiled from the tweet thread posted by @gargivach on December 14, 2024, with minor edits to improve readability and conform to HinduPost style guide)
