The Manusmriti – Busting the 7 Great Myths and Misconceptions

This article provides a comprehensive examination of the Manusmriti, a foundational text in ancient Indian jurisprudence, with the objective of deconstructing prevalent myths surrounding its content and historical impact. The analysis reveals the Manusmriti to be a complex and often contradictory document, shaped by diverse authorship and historical revisions, rather than a monolithic, static code. Key findings challenge popular misconceptions regarding the status of women, the nature of the social hierarchy, and the historical accuracy of Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s role in the Manusmriti burning event. 

The article emphasises the nuanced reality of women’s roles, including their recognised property rights, and clarifies the text’s articulation of the Varna system as distinct from the rigid Jati system, demonstrating instances of Varna mobility based on conduct and a principle of enhanced responsibility for higher castes in judicial matters. Furthermore, it rectifies the widely held belief about Ambedkar’s direct physical involvement in the Manusmriti burning, highlighting the strategic simplification of this historical event for political mobilisation. Ultimately, this report advocates for a critical, scholarly approach to ancient texts, recognising their intrinsic complexities and historical contexts to foster a more informed understanding of their enduring legacy in Bharatiyan society.

Introduction: The Manusmriti in Context

The Manusmriti, a metrical text composed in Sanskrit, stands as a pivotal document within the genre of Dharmaśāstra, which comprises authoritative Hindu texts on law, ethics, and social duties. Scholarly consensus generally dates the text’s composition to a period between the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE, though some analyses, particularly those based on numismatic evidence, suggest it might extend into the 3rd century CE.

This dating places it within a dynamic era of ancient Indian history, characterised by evolving societal structures and the emergence of new legal and ethical frameworks. The Manusmriti positions itself as a discourse delivered by Manu, a legendary progenitor of humankind and the first lawgiver in Hindu mythology, and his disciple Bhrigu, covering a wide array of dharma topics, including duties, rights, laws, conduct, and virtues.

However, modern academic scholarship departs from the traditional attribution to a single, mythical Manu. Instead, the Manusmriti is largely considered a composite work, likely compiled and revised by multiple authors over an extended period. This understanding is supported by the discovery of numerous manuscripts, which exhibit variations, indicating that the text was not fixed in a single, canonical form in antiquity. This textual fluidity is a crucial aspect of its historical understanding.

The version that eventually became most widespread, often referred to as the “vulgate” text, gained prominence through its association with a medieval commentary by Kullūka Bhaṭṭa, dating from approximately the 13th to 15th centuries. This commentary-recension later served as the standard text for early British translators, such as Sir William Jones, whose 1776 translation marked the Manusmriti’s significant entry into Western scholarship.

The composite and evolving nature of the Manusmriti carries significant implications for interpreting its content. The presence of internal contradictions, which will be explored in subsequent sections, is not necessarily indicative of errors or isolated anomalies. Rather, it is an inherent characteristic of a text that was accumulated, revised, and edited over centuries by different authors or schools of thought. This historical development suggests that attributing all problematic verses to a singular, consistent “original Manu” is an oversimplification. 

The historical reality is a dynamic document whose interpretations were influenced by various commentators and historical periods. This inherent fluidity profoundly impacts the perceived authority and uniform application of its dictates throughout history, demonstrating that its actual significance is far more nuanced than often portrayed in popular discourse.

Historically, the Manusmriti’s influence extended beyond the Indian subcontinent, impacting Hindu kingdoms in regions that are now part of Cambodia and Indonesia. Within India, it was widely regarded as a highly authoritative Dharmaśāstra and frequently consulted by pandits (scholars) in legal and ethical matters. Nevertheless, its practical enforcement as state law was not uniform; local customs and royal edicts often held precedence.

In contemporary public discourse, the Manusmriti has become a subject of considerable debate and criticism, primarily due to its perceived discriminatory injunctions concerning women and various social classes. This article aims to move beyond these often-simplified and polemical narratives by undertaking a rigorous textual and historical analysis. The primary objective is to differentiate systematically between prevalent myths and the intricate realities embedded within the text itself, as well as in its historical and scholarly interpretations.

The article will also systematically address key misconceptions by substantiating its arguments with direct textual references (shlokas) from the Manusmriti and drawing upon established scholarly commentaries. This evidence-based approach seeks to cultivate a more nuanced, historically informed, and objective understanding of the Manusmriti’s actual content and its multifaceted significance within Bharatiyan society.

The Status of Women in Manusmriti: Myth vs. Reality

A widespread misconception asserts that the Manusmriti consistently and unequivocally portrays women as inherently inferior, lacking agency, and treated as mere possessions. This narrative often claims that women were denied fundamental rights, including independence, access to education, and property ownership. This perspective is frequently supported by the selective citation of specific verses.

For instance, Manu 9.3 is commonly quoted to emphasise women’s perpetual dependence: “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”. This verse is often presented as definitive proof of women’s subjugation throughout their lives. 

Further, Manu 5.154, which states that “a faithful wife must constantly worship her husband as a god even if he is devoid of all virtues”, is cited to imply an absolute and unreciprocated subservience. The verse Manu 9.18, suggesting “Women have no business with the text of the Veda”, is frequently used to argue for their exclusion from spiritual and intellectual pursuits.

The economic status of women is also often misrepresented through Manu 8.416: “A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong”. This verse is commonly presented as irrefutable evidence that women were treated as property, entirely devoid of economic agency or the right to independent ownership. A deeper textual analysis, incorporating traditional commentaries and a broader survey of the Manusmriti, reveals a more complex and nuanced reality regarding the status of women, challenging the simplistic portrayal of absolute subordination.

Contextualising “No Independence” (Manu 9.3): 

पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने ।

रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥

While the literal translation of Manu 9.3, stating that a woman is “never fit for independence”, appears to endorse absolute subjugation, traditional commentaries offer a different interpretation. Medhatithi’s commentary on Manu 9.3 clarifies that “guarding” (rakṣati) implies “averting of trouble” and ensuring a woman’s “safety” from various harms, including “transgression of the right course of conduct” and “illegal appropriation of property”. 

The term “swaatantryam” (independence) in this context is interpreted not as a denial of personal agency or individual thought, but rather as a practical concern related to self-sustenance and physical vulnerability within the societal structure of the time. This interpretation emphasises the responsibility of male relatives to provide protection and care, shifting the focus from inherent inferiority to a framework of societal guardianship.

Emphasis on Respect and Honour (Manu 3.55): 

पितृभिर्भ्रातृभिश्चैताः पतिभिर्देवरैस्तथा ।

पूज्या भूषयितव्याश्च बहुकल्याणमीप्सुभिः ॥

Counterbalancing the verses that imply dependence, the Manusmriti contains explicit injunctions promoting profound respect and honour for women. Manu 3.55 unequivocally states: “Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards”. 

This highlights a significant internal dynamic within the text, suggesting a societal belief that the prosperity and spiritual efficacy of a household and society at large are intrinsically linked to the well-being and respectful treatment of women. The existence of such seemingly contradictory injunctions indicates that the Manusmriti’s stance on women is not a monolithic, uniformly oppressive doctrine. 

Instead, it reflects a complex and at times contradictory compilation, possibly incorporating different ideals, practical considerations of the era, and potentially later interpolations or varying regional interpretations over time. This complexity implies that the text was subject to diverse interpretations and was not always applied uniformly or literally, even in ancient times.

Women’s Property Rights (Strīdhana – Manu 9.194): 

अध्यग्न्यध्यावाहनिकं दत्तं च प्रीतिकर्मणि ।

भ्रातृमातृपितृप्राप्तं षड् विधं स्त्रीधनं स्मृतम् ॥

The assertion that women possessed no property rights is a significant oversimplification. The Manusmriti explicitly recognises and defines “Strīdhana” (woman’s exclusive property). Manu 9.194 enumerates six specific types of Strīdhana: gifts received before the nuptial fire, at the time of departure from her father’s house, as a token of love, and from her brother, mother, and father.

Commentaries on 9.194, such as those by Medhatithi and Mitākṣarā, clarify that the mention of “six-fold” is not exhaustive but sets a minimum, implying that women could possess other forms of property as well. These texts directly refute the notion that women had no property rights except through their husband or son. While it is acknowledged that women’s rights to ancestral or marital landed property were often limited, the concept of Strīdhana ensured their independent ownership of movable assets like jewellery, clothes, and gifts, over which they had considerable control.

Inheritance of Strīdhana (Manu 9.196-197): 

ब्राह्मदैवार्षगान्धर्वप्राजापत्येषु यद् वसु ।

अप्रजायामतीतायां भर्तुरेव तदिष्यते ॥

यत् त्वस्याः स्याद् धनं दत्तं विवाहेष्वासुरादिषु ।

अप्रजायामतीतायां मातापित्रोस्तदिष्यते ॥

Manusmriti 9.196-197 further elaborates on the devolution of Strīdhana upon a woman’s childless demise. It stipulates that property goes to her husband if she was married by certain approved forms (Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, Prājāpatya), and to her parents if she was married by other forms (Āsura, etc). This demonstrates a structured system of female property ownership and inheritance, even if subject to specific conditions related to marriage type and progeny.

Remarriage Provisions and Limitations (Manu 9.176):

सा चेदक्षतयोनिः स्याद् गतप्रत्यागताऽपि वा ।

पौनर्भवेन भर्त्रा सा पुनः संस्कारमर्हति ॥

The issue of remarriage for women in Manusmriti is complex and not subject to a singular, rigid prohibition. While some verses, such as Manu 9.65 and 5.157, are often cited to suggest a blanket prohibition on widow remarriage, other passages and commentaries present a more nuanced picture. Manu 9.176, for instance, states that a “damsel abducted by force, and has not been wedded with the sacred texts, she may lawfully be given to another man; she is even like a maiden”. 

This indicates specific circumstances under which remarriage was deemed permissible. Furthermore, the concept of niyoga (levirate marriage), which allowed a childless widow to conceive a child with her husband’s brother to perpetuate the lineage, is discussed. Commentaries also address waiting periods for wives of absent husbands, after which they might be permitted to “betake herself to another man”. The presence of contradictory passages and varying interpretations across different Dharmashastra texts suggests that the issue of remarriage was not subject to a singular, rigid prohibition but rather reflected diverse practices and evolving societal norms.

Social Hierarchy in Manusmriti: Debunking Caste-Based Discrimination Myths

A widely propagated misconception asserts that the Manusmriti is the foundational and unchanging source that established and rigidly enforced a hereditary, birth-based caste system (Jati) in India. This system is believed to have inherently discriminated against and severely suppressed lower castes, particularly the Shudras, denying them fundamental rights and opportunities.

Verses such as Manu 1.31, which describes the creation of Brahmins from Brahma’s mouth and Shudras from his feet, are frequently cited to imply an immutable, divinely ordained, and birth-based hierarchy. The observation that the Manusmriti dedicates a disproportionately brief section to the rules for Vaishyas and Shudras compared to the extensive laws for Brahmins and Kshatriyas is often presented as evidence of their inherent marginalisation and lesser importance within the text’s framework.

Specific injunctions are highlighted to illustrate the alleged suppression of Shudras, including the denial of Vedic education (Manu 4.78-81), the prohibition against accumulating wealth (Manu 10.129), and the mandate for compulsory servitude (Manu 8.413). Furthermore, severe punishments prescribed for Shudras who insult higher castes (e.g., cutting out the tongue for gross invective – Manu 8.270, pouring hot oil into the mouth and ears for preaching religion to Brahmins – Manu 8.272) are frequently presented as irrefutable proof of extreme discrimination and a biased system of justice.

A comprehensive analysis of the Manusmriti reveals a more complex understanding of social organisation, distinguishing between the theoretical Varna system and the later, more rigid Jati system, and highlighting principles of mobility and differentiated responsibility.

Varna vs. Jati: A Crucial Distinction: 

It is critical to differentiate between the Varna system, which the Manusmriti primarily discusses, and the later, more rigid, birth-based Jati system. The Varna system, as conceptualised in ancient Hindu texts, refers to four idealised functional classes: Brahmins (priestly/scholarly), Kshatriyas (rulers/warriors), Vaishyas (merchants/farmers), and Shudras (artisans/labourers). 

This framework is often understood as a classification based on an individual’s guna (intrinsic qualities or aptitudes) and karma (actions or performed duties), rather than solely on birth. Some scholarly interpretations even describe Varna as a “universal psychological classification system” that is not inherently accorded by birth. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the Manusmriti’s original intent versus later societal developments.

The Manusmriti contains several verses that explicitly link an individual’s Varna status to their conduct, knowledge, and adherence to prescribed duties, suggesting a degree of mobility or degradation based on guna and karma. For instance, Manu 2.157 states that a Brahmin who neglects the study of the Vedas is merely a “Brahmin by name”, likened to a “wooden elephant or a leather deer”. 

This underscores that true Brahmin status is not automatic by birth but requires continuous adherence to scholarly and spiritual duties. Similarly, Manu 2.168 warns that a “twice-born man” (Dvija, typically a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya) who, “not having learnt the veda, labours over other things, soon falls, along with his descendants, even while living, to the state of the śūdra”. This is a direct textual statement of Varna degradation based on a deviation from prescribed conduct and intellectual pursuits. 

Manu 10.43 further illustrates this by mentioning that certain Kshatriya castes “gradually sank to the position of the low-born” due to “omission of the sacred rites, and also by their neglect of Brāhmaṇas”. This reinforces the principle of Varna status being contingent on adherence to Dharma. Most notably, Manu 10.65 explicitly states: “(Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya”. While commentaries may introduce complexities or conditions, the literal text directly suggests Varna mobility based on conduct, challenging the notion of an immutable, birth-based hierarchy.

While the Manusmriti does assign Shudras a primary role of service (Manu 1.91, 10.121-123) and imposes restrictions on their direct Vedic education (Manu 4.78-81) and wealth accumulation (Manu 10.129), it also contains provisions that offer a more nuanced perspective than outright suppression. Manu 10.126 states: “For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites”. Medhatithi’s commentary on this verse clarifies that while certain sacred rites are not compulsory for Shudras, their voluntary performance is “conducive to his welfare”. 

This implies a pathway to spiritual benefit for Shudras, even if different from the “twice-born.” Furthermore, Shudras were permitted to perform pūrta-dharma (charitable acts such as building wells, tanks, temples, and distributing charity) and certain daily Mahāyajñas (great sacrifices) using ordinary fire and without Vedic mantras. This indicates a recognised and valued role for Shudras in religious and social welfare activities.

The Manusmriti’s judicial system is indeed structured around the Varna framework, often prescribing differential punishments. However, the common misconception that higher castes invariably received lighter punishments for the same crimes is not entirely accurate and requires careful examination of the text’s internal logic. 

While severe and disproportionate punishments are prescribed for Shudras who insult or assault higher castes (e.g., cutting out the tongue for invective – Manu 8.270; pouring hot oil into the mouth and ears for preaching – Manu 8.272), the text also stipulates heavier penalties for higher varnas, particularly Brahmins, for certain offences like theft. Manu 8.337-338 states that the guilt for theft is “eightfold” for a Shudra, “sixteen-fold” for a Vaishya, “thirty-two-fold” for a Kshatriya, and “sixty-four-fold, or fully hundred-fold, or twice sixty-four-fold” for a Brahmin. 

This principle embedded within Manusmriti’s judicial framework demonstrates that higher social status and greater knowledge, especially for Brahmins who were expected to be exemplars of Dharma, came with greater accountability and harsher penalties for moral transgressions. The rationale, as implied by commentaries, is that those with more knowledge and responsibility should be held to a higher standard.

This moves beyond a simplistic “privilege for Brahmins” narrative to a more nuanced system where responsibility was proportional to one’s societal role and understanding of Dharma. The prevailing narrative often selectively focuses only on the punitive measures against lower castes, ignoring the reciprocal severity for higher castes in specific crimes, thus presenting an incomplete picture of the text’s approach to justice.

Myth	Reality	Relevant Manusmriti Shlokas & Commentary
Women are inherently inferior and never fit for independence.	While Manu 9.3 states “a woman is never fit for independence,” Medhatithi’s commentary clarifies that this refers to her need for protection and sustenance due to societal conditions and lack of physical strength, not inherent inferiority. The text also contains explicit commands for honouring and adorning women.	Manu 9.3 – Medhatithi’s commentary on 9.3, and Manu 3.55-56.
Women are treated as mere property and have no rights to ownership.	Manusmriti explicitly defines “Strīdhana” (woman’s exclusive property), outlining six types of gifts she can own. While rights to ancestral/marital landed property were often limited, she had independent ownership over her Strīdhana, over which she had considerable control.	Manu 9.194. Manu 9.196-197. Commentary on 9.194 and Mitākṣarā clarify women’s property rights.
Widow remarriage is forbidden in the Manusmriti.	While some verses suggest prohibition (Manu 9.65, 5.157), other passages and commentaries indicate conditions under which remarriage or niyoga (levirate) was permissible, especially for unconsummated marriages or childless widows after specific waiting periods. The text shows internal contradictions on this matter.	Manu 9.65. Manu 5.157. Manu 9.176. Discussions on niyoga and waiting periods for absent husbands. Contradictions noted in.
Manusmriti establishes a rigid, birth-based caste system (Jati) with no mobility.	Manusmriti primarily describes the Varna system, which, in its idealised form, is based on guna (qualities) and karma (actions). The text explicitly mentions Varna mobility or degradation based on an individual’s conduct and adherence to Dharma.	Manu 2.157. Manu 2.168. Manu 10.43 Manu 10.65. Distinction between Varna and Jati –  Varna as ‘guna-karma-based’
Shudras are denied all rights, including education and spiritual participation.	While Shudras faced restrictions on direct Vedic study (Manu 4.78-81) and were assigned a service role, Manusmriti 10.126 indicates “no prohibition against sacred rites” for Shudras, implying non-compulsory but beneficial religious acts. They were permitted to perform charitable acts (pūrta-dharma) and certain daily rites.	Manu 4.78-81. Manu 10.126. Medhatithi’s commentary on 10.126. Shudra rights/disabilities.
Shudras are always punished more severely than higher castes for the same crime.	While severe punishments for Shudras insulting higher castes are prescribed (e.g., Manu 8.270, 8.272), Manusmriti also prescribes heavier punishments for higher castes, particularly Brahmins, for certain crimes like theft, based on their greater knowledge and responsibility.	Manu 8.270. Manu 8.272. Manu 8.337-338. Principle of enhanced responsibility.
Babasaheb Ambedkar personally burned the Manusmriti.	Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the ideological leader of the Mahad Satyagraha and justified the burning as a symbolic protest against casteism. However, the physical act of burning on December 25, 1927, was carried out by Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe (a Brahmin) and other Dalit monks.

The Babasaheb Ambedkar Manusmriti Burning: Historical Accuracy and Political Narrative

The public burning of the Manusmriti is a historically significant event that occurred on December 25, 1927, during the Mahad Conference in Maharashtra. This act was a crucial component of the broader Mahad Satyagraha, a movement led by Dr B.R. Ambedkar. The primary objective of the Mahad Satyagraha was to assert the fundamental right of Dalits to access public water sources, a symbolic and practical demand for equality and human dignity that challenged centuries of discrimination.

The act of burning the Manusmriti was a powerful symbolic protest. It represented a direct and emphatic rejection of the caste system and its oppressive ideological framework, particularly the religious justifications for untouchability and caste-based discrimination. Dr Ambedkar held a profound conviction that the Manusmriti was a core source of social injustice and inequality, especially for Dalits and women. He articulated the act as a means to “shame those who revered the Manusmriti into reconsidering their support for its teachings,” drawing a parallel to Mahatma Gandhi’s symbolic burning of foreign cloth as a form of protest against colonial rule.

Ambedkar’s Role: Ideological Leadership vs. Direct Physical Involvement

A widely circulated and deeply ingrained misconception often perpetuated through popular media, political discourse, and social media claims that Babasaheb Dr B.R. Ambedkar personally set the Manusmriti on fire on December 25, 1927. This narrative is a central feature of annual “Manusmriti Dahan Diwas” commemorations.

However, historical records clearly indicate that while Dr. Ambedkar was undeniably the central ideological leader and organiser of the Mahad Satyagraha, and delivered a pivotal speech immediately before the burning, he did not physically perform the act of burning the Manusmriti himself. The actual physical act of burning was carried out by Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe, a Brahmin associate of Ambedkar, along with five or six other ‘untouchable’ monks. No authentic record or his own extensive writings confirm Ambedkar’s direct physical participation in the burning itself.

The deliberate inclusion of a Brahmin, Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe, in the act of burning was a highly intentional and symbolic gesture. It aimed to demonstrate that opposition to the Manusmriti’s casteist ideology was not confined solely to Dalits but was a shared conviction among progressive individuals from all social backgrounds, including those from the Brahmin community. This crucial detail challenges the simplistic “Ambedkar vs. Brahmins” or “Dalits vs. Hindus” narrative that often dominates popular discourse surrounding the event.

The Evolution and Impact of the Narrative as Political Propaganda

The simplification of this historical event to “Ambedkar burned Manusmriti” serves a distinct political purpose. This streamlined narrative often aims to forge a more direct and confrontational image of Ambedkar as a singular figure directly challenging and destroying symbols of traditional Hindu texts, thereby mobilising support around a clear and potent symbol of rejection.

The distortion of Ambedkar’s direct physical involvement is not merely a historical inaccuracy; it represents a strategic simplification of a complex historical event into a powerful, easily consumable symbol. This simplification is highly effective for political mobilisation and propaganda due to several factors. 

First, it crafts a more direct, singular “hero” figure taking decisive, revolutionary action, which is far more impactful and memorable than a collective act involving multiple individuals. Second, it sharpens the narrative by presenting Ambedkar as directly confronting and destroying the tangible symbol of oppression (Manusmriti), making the “enemy” (casteism, Brahminical supremacy) more concrete and identifiable. Third, a clear, simplified image and narrative are easier to disseminate through various channels, such as social media, public speeches, and cultural events, serving as a potent rallying point for mass movements and fostering a strong sense of identity and grievance. 

Crucially, this simplified narrative conveniently omits or downplays the participation of a Brahmin (Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe) in the burning. This omission prevents complicating a purely “Dalit vs. Brahmin” or “Ambedkar vs. Hinduism” narrative, thereby reinforcing a specific political polarisation that might serve contemporary agendas. Therefore, the false narrative is not just a factual error but a deliberate or emergent distortion that amplifies a specific political message, often at the expense of historical complexity, the nuanced alliances within the anti-caste movement, and a holistic understanding of Ambedkar’s broader intellectual and social reform efforts.

Conclusion: Reassessing Manusmriti’s Enduring Legacy

This article has systematically examined the Manusmriti, meticulously deconstructing several prevalent myths surrounding its content and historical impact. The analysis has established that the Manusmriti is a composite and evolving text, reflecting diverse authorship and historical revisions, rather than a monolithic, static code. This inherent textual fluidity accounts for some of its internal contradictions, which are often selectively highlighted in popular discourse.

The portrayal of women within the Manusmriti, while certainly reflecting the patriarchal norms of ancient society, is more complex than simple derogation. The text balances injunctions for women’s protection and dependence with strong commands for their honour and adornment, and it explicitly recognises women’s distinct property rights through the concept of Strīdhana. Similarly, the text primarily articulates the Varna system, which, in its idealised form, is linked to guna (qualities) and karma (actions), not solely birth. Evidence within the text suggests Varna mobility and degradation based on an individual’s conduct and adherence to Dharma, challenging the notion of an immutable, birth-based hierarchy. 

Furthermore, while the Manusmriti contains discriminatory rules and harsh punishments for Shudras in certain contexts, it also outlines avenues for their spiritual participation and, notably, prescribes harsher punishments for higher castes (especially Brahmins) for certain crimes, reflecting a principle of enhanced responsibility based on knowledge and social standing.

Finally, the widely propagated belief that Babasaheb Ambedkar personally burned the Manusmriti is a historical inaccuracy. While he was the pivotal ideological leader of the Mahad Satyagraha and justified the act as a symbolic protest against casteism, the physical burning was carried out by others, including a Brahmin associate, a detail often overlooked in political narratives. This historical clarification underscores how complex events can be simplified for political mobilisation, often obscuring nuanced alliances and historical realities.

The Manusmriti, as a product of its time, reflects the intricate societal norms, philosophical currents, and evolving legal thought of ancient India. It’s internal contradictions and varied interpretations across different recensions and commentaries underscore the dynamic nature of Dharmashastra literature. Acknowledging this complexity is essential for an objective understanding, moving beyond simplistic acceptance or outright rejection. While the Manusmriti exerted profound historical influence as a foundational Dharmaśāstra, its literal application in contemporary society is largely incompatible with modern principles of equality, human rights, and constitutional law.

This article concludes by advocating for a critical, scholarly approach to ancient texts. This approach necessitates recognising their historical context, appreciating their internal complexities, and understanding the evolution of their interpretations, rather than uncritically accepting or rejecting them based on oversimplified or politically motivated narratives.

Sources and References:

1. The Manusmriti (Book of Manu): A Comprehensive Overview | ERIC KIM., accessed August 15, 2025, https://erickimphotography.com/the-manusmriti-book-of-manu-a-comprehensive-overview/
2. Manusmriti – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti
3. Manu Smriti: Significance and symbolism, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/manusmriti
4. Manusmriti | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/manusmriti
5. Full 9th Chapter of Manusmriti, accessed August 15, 2025, https://eweb.furman.edu/~ateipen/ReligionA45/protected/manusmriti.htm
6. Manusmriti Verse 9.3, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201361.html
7. PROPERTY RIGHTS OF HINDU WOMEN: A FEMINIST REVIEW OF SUCCESSION LAWS OF ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL, AND MODERN INDIA Debarati Haider and – Cambridge University Press, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A054D9949BF2EF6DC892C227B23A4476/S0748081400001740a.pdf/property_rights_of_hindu_women_a_feminist_review_of_succession_laws_of_ancient_medieval_and_modern_india.pdf
8. Property Rights of Hindu Women: A Feminist Review of Succession Laws of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern India | Journal of Law and Religion – Cambridge University Press, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/property-rights-of-hindu-women-a-feminist-review-of-succession-laws-of-ancient-medieval-and-modern-india/A054D9949BF2EF6DC892C227B23A4476
9. Why Manusmriti Dahan Divas Is Still Relevant Today, accessed August 15, 2025, https://varunvasunarayananblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/25/why-manusmriti-dahan-divas-is-still-relevant-today/
10. Manusmriti Women’s Rights Insights: Examining Various Perspectives, accessed August 15, 2025, https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-womens-rights-insights-examining-various-perspectives/
11. Laws of Manu – Angelfire, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.angelfire.com/ak/ambedkar/BRManusmriti.html
12. www.wisdomlib.org, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201351.html#:~:text=Property%20can%20belong%20to%20one,the%20slave%20to%20the%20master.
13. Manu Smriti, Adhyaya – 8 – Gyaandweep, accessed August 15, 2025, https://gyaandweep.com/manusmriti/8/
14. A study of the caste structure and women’s lives in Manusmriti, accessed August 15, 2025, https://multiresearchjournal.theviews.in/counter/d/1-1-7/1-1-7.1.pdf
15. Manūsmriti on women [3.56]. One single verse is enough to defend all the allegations against our scripture. : r/hinduism – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/1k4xho0/man%C5%ABsmriti_on_women_356_one_single_verse_is/?tl=en
16. Manu Smriti, Adhyaya – 3 – Gyaandweep, accessed August 15, 2025, https://gyaandweep.com/manusmriti/3/
17. www.wisdomlib.org, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199834.html#:~:text=%E2%80%94’O%20king%2C%20women%20should,’
18. Manusmriti Verse 9.194 [Strīdhana (property of the wife)], accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201574.html
19. Property Rights of Hindu Women: A Feminist Review of Succession Laws of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern India – International Journal of Social Impact, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ijsi.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/18.02.010.20220701.pdf
20. Women’s Property (Stri-Dhana): A Critical Appraisal – JETIR.org, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2307031.pdf
21. Manusmriti Verse 9.196-197, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201576.html
22. Is widow remarriage permitted in Hinduism? – VedKaBhed.Com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/01/is-widow-remarriage-permitted-in-hinduism/
23. www.wisdomlib.org, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201555.html#:~:text=%E2%80%94’If%20a%20damsel%20has%20been,is%20even%20like%20a%20maiden.
24. Widow Remarriage and Niyoga – Oxford Academic, accessed August 15, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/book/45654/chapter/398017839/chapter-pdf/50193732/oso-9780197664544-chapter-2.pdf
25. Manusmriti Verse 9.76, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201438.html
26. What is the truth? And why do people and some saints oppose widow remarriage? : r/hinduism – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/1astfb1/what_is_the_truth_and_why_do_people_and_some/
27. Casteist Verses from Manusmriti – Law Book of Hindus | Velivada, accessed August 15, 2025, https://velivada.com/2017/05/31/casteist-quotes-verses-manusmriti-law-book-hindus/
28. Manu Smriti on Shudras – SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia., accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Manu_Smriti_on_Shudras
29. Manusmriti to Modernity: Caste, Labour, and the Unbroken Chain of Exploitation, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/manusmriti-to-modernity-caste-labour-and-the-unbroken-chain-of-exploitation/
30. Manu Smriti and Untouchables – VedKaBhed.Com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2018/05/01/manu-smriti-and-untouchables/
31. Why does Manusmriti say, “If a shudra mentions the name and class of a twice-born contumely [i.e. without proper respect], an iron nail, ten figures long, shall be thrust into his mouth.” – Quora, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Manusmriti-say-If-a-shudra-mentions-the-name-and-class-of-a-twice-born-contumely-i-e-without-proper-respect-an-iron-nail-ten-figures-long-shall-be-thrust-into-his-mouth
32. Manusmriti Verse 8.283, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201218.html
33. Caste system in India – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
34. Varna (Hinduism) – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)
35. Can the lower-borns enter the varna system? – Hinduism Stack Exchange, accessed August 15, 2025, https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/38067/can-the-lower-borns-enter-varna-system
36. Manusmriti Varna Determination: Ancient Insights – Genuine Hindu Info Source, accessed August 15, 2025, https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-varna-determination-ancient-insights/
37. Hindu Ethics and VarNAshrama Dharma – ruthaavaree – WordPress.com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ruthaavaree.wordpress.com/hindu-ethics-and-varnashrama-dharma/
38. Manusmriti Verse 2.168, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc199641.html
39. Manusmriti Verse 10.43, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201773.html
40. Manu Smriti, Adhyaya – 10 – Gyaandweep, accessed August 15, 2025, https://gyaandweep.com/manusmriti/10/
41. An analysis of Manusmriti 10.65 – Vedic Wisdom, accessed August 15, 2025, https://sanatanwisdomofvedas.wordpress.com/2020/11/12/an-analysis-of-manusmriti-10-65/
42. Manusmriti Verse 10.61, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201795.html
43. Manusmriti Verse 10.126, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201868.html
44. Shudra – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra
45. Criminal Justice Tenets in Manusmriti | 10 | A Critical Appraisal of t – Taylor & Francis eBooks, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429320118-10/criminal-justice-tenets-manusmriti-jaishankar-debarati-halder
46. Manusmriti: A Critique of The Criminal Justice Tenets in The Ancient Indian Hindu Code | PDF | Crime & Violence – Scribd, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/200567021/Manu-Smriti
47. Manu-smriti | Dharma, Vedic Texts & Ancient India – Britannica, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manu-smriti
48. Manu Smriti and Śūdras: Unveiling the backbone of Hindu civilisation – The Hans India, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/opinion/news-analysis/manu-smriti-and-dras-unveiling-the-backbone-of-hindu-civilisation-970071
49. Manusmriti Verse 8.336, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi/d/doc201268.html
50. 957 – Crimes and Punishment | – sanskritroots.com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://sanskritroots.com/thirukkural-couplets/901-1000/951-960/957-crimes-and-punishment/
51. Answering the question that needs to be asked more often: Did Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar really burn Manusmriti? With historical lenses. (READ BODY TEXT in order to understand the slides) : r/IndianHistory – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/comments/1hnd6vy/answering_the_question_that_needs_to_be_asked/
52. The Burning of Manusmriti at Mahad: Facts – ResearchGate, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391908511_The_Burning_of_Manusmriti_at_Mahad_Facts
53. The Burning of Manusmriti: A Defining Moment in the Fight Against Caste Oppression, accessed August 15, 2025, https://lordbuddhatv.in/special-eye-be-forced-to-make-nhs-workforce-plans-public/
54. Why did Dr. Ambedkar burn the Manusmriti in 1927 and not the Vedas? – Quora, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Dr-Ambedkar-burn-Manusmriti-in-1927-and-not-the-Vedas
55. Why did Dr. Ambedkar burn the Manusmriti when no one followed it, including himself? – Quora, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Dr-Ambedkar-burn-Manusmriti-when-no-one-followed-it-including-himself