Education
Why Teaching 'Laws of Manu' in Law Schools is Detrimental to Students and the Judicial System
The object of law is to deliver justice to the vulnerable sections of society and promote order and stability in society.
New Delhi-The Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, on July 11, proposed several changes to the syllabus to the academic council, the most controversial of which was to introduce Manusmriti with the Manubhasya of Medhatithi by G.N. Jha as suggested reading under Unit V - Analytical Positivism in the undergraduate LLB Semester 1 course, as reported by The Indian Express.
This move invited criticism from several faculty members, progressive organizations, and student organizations. Following this, on the same day, Vice-Chancellor Yogesh Singh stated that the readings on this particular topic would be removed from the proposal before presenting it to the Academic Council.
Later, on Friday, the academic council passed other amendments, making several changes to the syllabus. This isn't the first incident when such attempts have been made.
As a student of law, I will try to analyze why teaching the 'Laws of Manu' in law school is not at all a good decision for students as well as the judicial system.
Manu is known as the lawgiver in Hindu tradition, and Manusmriti, also known as the 'laws of Manu', is a legal text that talks about the laws of life, the creation of the world, dharma, and karma, etc.
Believed to have been written between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd CE, this controversial text glorifies and reinforces all sorts of birth-based inequalities – social, economic, and gender. It represents problematic views on women and Dalits in particular. The book justifies the inequality and subjugation of human beings, ideas that are in complete contradiction to modern jurisprudence and the ideas of the constitution where the Rule of Law is supreme and principles of equality, justice, and freedom are valued.
The Indian preamble talks of equality, justice, liberty, and fraternity, which are the core fundamental values of our constitution. In contrast, the laws of Manu are symbols of inequality, cruelty, and injustice.
In Chapter 1, shloka 31 states, “But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.” It describes people as unequal starting from birth itself. The professions are also determined based on birth, i.e., the caste one is born into.
Changing a profession or adopting a profession assigned to another caste is considered to be a sin and is to be punished severely to preserve the caste system and order of society. All this is justified based on the idea of ‘karma’, i.e., one’s deeds in previous life and the present which will determine the caste one will be born into.
Living in a patriarchal society where each day is a struggle for survival for women. It has been through a long historical and legal struggle that women have gained access to equal rights, opportunities, and dignity.
Several special provisions have been included in the constitution, and arrangements in the legal framework have been made after several landmark judgments. But we still need to go very far. Contrary to this, the laws of Manu state: (chapter 5, shlokas 148, 149) “Even in her own home, a female – whether she is a child, a young woman or an old lady – 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.”
Women are denied agency over their bodies and sexuality, and their lives are to be controlled starting from infancy. They are to be married as soon as they attain puberty.
They are mere means of reproduction, and they must satisfy the lust of their husband, Shloka 154, “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.”
The rules are different for men and women, while a woman must remain obedient to her husband even after his death a widower is advised to remarry and establish a new life for him, (shloka 168, chapter 5).
For men, exploitation of women was justified, (chapter 3, shlokas 12, 13). “At first marriage, a woman of equal class is recommended for twice-born men; but for those who proceed further through lust, these are, in order, the preferable women. A Sudra may take only a Sudra woman as a wife; a Vaisya, the latter and a woman of his own class; a Kshatriya, the latter two and a woman of his own class; and a Brahmin, the latter three and a woman of his own class.”
Women possess the ability to reproduce and sustain society, controlling their sexuality, and the institution of marriage was important to maintain the institution of caste and the concept of purity.
Today when we talk about feminism and women’s rights, Manusmriti in complete contrast justifies inequality and exploitation based on gender.
Many argue that according to Manusmriti, caste was based on one’s occupation and was flexible in ancient India.
Whereas Chapter 8, shloka 410, says, “A king should make Sudras engage in the service of twice-born people”, and shlokas 413, 414, say “the Sudra was created by the self-created one solely to do slave labor for the Brahmin. Even when he is released by his master, a Sudra is not freed from his slave status for that is innate in him; and who can remove it from him?”
Chapter 8, shloka 129: “Even a capable Sudra must not accumulate wealth; for when a Sudra becomes wealthy, he harasses Brahmins.”
Chapter 8, shloka 418: “The King should strenuously make Vaisyas and Sudras perform the activities specific to them; for when they deviate from their specific activities, they throw this world into confusion.”
Chapter 10, Shloka 95, 97: “Far better to carry out one’s own Law imperfectly than that of someone else’s perfect; for a man who lives according to someone else’s Law falls immediately from his caste”.
Manusmriti talks of a rigid caste class system and lays down rules for its survival. Rules apply differently based on one's caste, the Shudras don’t have the right to accumulate wealth and own property because if they would do so they would challenge the authority of Brahmins. One can’t transcend the boundaries of the caste system and it is the dharma to follow the occupation assigned to them by the caste in which he is born. The lower castes are even considered unfit for education. The important thing to note is the Dalits are not part of the chaturvarna system they were the outcasts.
The constitution provides every citizen of the country the right to equality, freedom, and the right against any kind of exploitation and discrimination. Article 17 abolished untouchability and made it an offense under the law. Several other such provisions were included to address the deep-rooted problem of caste in Indian society.
Manusmriti not only talks of discrimination based on caste and occupation but considers it essential for the stability of society.
It is not the first incident when the administration and DU authorities have attempted to saffronize the academic spaces, including such irrational and academically irrelevant texts and removing progressive and critical texts from the syllabus.
In the same row, the academic council on Friday passed amendments where several important legal works by scholars like Amartya Sen, John Locke, Allen Buchanan, and Hans Kelsens 'Pure theory of law' have been replaced by irrelevant concepts like 'dharma' and 'purushartha' despite dissents from several professors and students.
This is going to affect the minds of students subconsciously if not otherwise, who are going to be part of the legal system in the future as advocates, judges, and jurists.
When you enter the faculty of law building, you see a portrait of Dr. Ambedkar on the left wall. One would wonder how the faculty could think of teaching a text that was burned by Ambedkar as a symbol of protest against the ideas the book represents.
The object of law is to deliver justice to the vulnerable sections of society and promote order and stability in society. Law students should be taught to incorporate an analytical approach within themselves. Remembering sections from bare acts and learning case laws will not make us good lawyers but questioning the faults in the legal framework and understanding the nuances of the judicial system will.
- The Author Hitesh Kumar is a First Year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.