How can a 2000-year-old book be so controversial that people still burn it in public ceremonies every year?
Why does simply saying the title’s name – Manusmriti – stir up frustration, confusion and fear in Hindus, and anger in those who oppose our dharma?
I’m Manik, your charioteer, and in this 5-part blog series, we’re going to actually sit down and study the Manusmriti, the most hotly debated scripture of Sanatan Dharma.
If you’ve been stuck in debates without clear answers, if you are curious to find out the truth, and if you want the hard facts, not biased generalisations or excuses – then this post is for you.
In the first part, we’ll understand where the Manusmriti sits in the larger library of Hindu literature. In the second, we’ll look at who wrote the text, how it evolved, and the scope of topics that it covers. In the third part, we’ll tackle the accusation of it being anti-women and anti-feminist. In the fourth, we’ll explore its opinions on caste and Varna – the biggest issue of all. And finally, in the fifth part, we’ll conclude by talking about how we should approach this text in the 21st century.
Part 1: Locating the Manusmriti
With that, let’s begin – most people who debate the Manusmriti have no idea what kind of text it actually is, which is the first problem.
The entire Hindu literature is broadly divided into Shruti and Smriti.
The Shruti, meaning “that which was heard” are said to be “apaurasheya” – not of human origin, instead received by our ancient rishis in deep meditation as some sort of divine radio transmissions, and they were passed down orally with extraordinary precision.
The Smriti, on the other hand, are that which was remembered and written by human authors; while the Shruti form the philosophical base and authoritative source of our Dharma’s knowledge, the Smriti texts take the Shruti’s essence to provide us with more practical guidelines for living everyday life ethically.
Coming back to the Shruti, they were categorised and arranged by Ved Vyasa in four schools – Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva, so we know them as the Veda – knowledge, today.
To understand these Vedas, we have the six Vedangas, supporting limbs that help us decode or apply the Vedic knowledge. One of these limbs is Kalpa, the study of rituals and practices.
Now, in Kalpa, we had four main rishis who wrote the Sutras, books that gave general instructions on various aspects of life, from household duties to fire yajnyas. Out of these, the Dharma Sutras provided instructions on one’s personal and social duties. But the problem with Sutras is that they were tightly compressed texts written for advanced study.
So later authors took the Dharma Sutras and expanded them into the Dharma Shashtras – more elaborate and systematic works on how to maintain social and legal order. This makes them the original political science textbooks.
Finally, that’s how we got the Manusmriti, the Yajnyavalkya Smriti, the Narada Smriti, the Parashara Smriti, and so on!
So now that we know what kind of text it is, let’s understand its origin!
Part 2: Evolution, Contents & Authorship
How did we get the Manusmriti?
Fortunately, it gives us this answer in the first few verses itself. The Manusmriti opens with a gathering of sages approaching Svayambhu Manu – who is like the original class monitor and the first being or progenitor of the universe. The sages ask him to explain the laws of Dharma. Manu then instructs Maharishi Bhrigu to teach the assembled sages on his behalf.
Tradition holds that the original knowledge was 100,000 verses. Then someone named Sumati Bhargava, who is mentioned in other Smritis as continuing Bhrigu’s lineage, happened to condensed it into 4000 verses. After centuries of transmission, the surviving text that we have today is approximately 2,684 verses long, spread across 12 chapters.
The funniest part is that critics who are busy calling it an “oppressive book,” seem to have barely read it, except for a few fragments, because the scope is so vast and beautiful.
Chapter 1 is on cosmology – how the universe was created. Chapter 2 defines Dharma and the Samskaras – rites of passage for a complete Hindu life. Chapter 3 addresses householders and guides them on how to acquire wealth legitimately.
Chapters 4 and 5 cover daily conduct, spiritual purity, and which foods to eat or avoid to maintain purity. Chapter 6 guides older people on how to withdraw from material life and go inwards. Chapter 7 turns its attention towards kings and rulers, guiding them on how to govern their people.
Chapter 8 covers civil and criminal law in detail. Chapter 9 addresses family law and inheritance. Chapter 10 covers the theory of Varna, which we’ll talk about in detail soon. Chapter 11 discusses prayaschitta – how to say sorry for various degrees of sin. And Chapter 12 moves into high philosophy, explaining karma, bhakti and the path to moksha or liberation from the cycle of life and death.
So this is a complete manual written with the intent to help us live justly, not a torture book on oppression.
The more critical question is – how did it evolve to become such a big controversy? Let’s trace that line of history.
The first written versions of the manuscript are usually dated between 200 BCE to 200 CE, coinciding with the early Kushan period after the Mauryan Era. But of course, the actual book may be a bit older than that.
While some critics like Wendy Doniger have accused it of being a “patchwork” of verses from unrelated sources, and scholars on the other side argue it is the work of a single committee of authors carried down an unbroken lineage, the truth likely sits somewhere in between. This means it must be a largely intact work with some “interpolations” or “new additions” done later on.
Either way, after Maharishi Bhrigu and Sumati Bhargava, the next person we should meet is Medhatithi, a legendary Kashmiri scholar who wrote his Manubhashyacommentary in the 9th or 10th century CE. His work is the benchmark for traditional interpretation of the text. And apparently, he also identified some verses as possible interpolations.
Later on, we have Kulluka Bhatta from the 15th Century CE, who authored the most widely circulated commentary on the text. His reading became the dominant version taught across India for centuries.
Then, in 1920, Mahamahopadhyaya Ganganath Jha produced a critical translation of Manusmriti – with Medhatithi’s commentary – and this remains the actual scholarly standard version that you must read. It’s available on Wisdom Library for free but to make it more accessible, my team has parsed all the verses (along with their English translation) into an Excel Sheet Databasethat you can check out online – I’m linking them in the description below.
Excel Sheet Link ⤵️
Manusmriti All Verses (extracted from Wisdom Library)
While western authors like Patrik Olivelle have also made attempts to translate the text, on the Indian side, Dr. Surendra Kumar from the Arya Samaj, produced a “Vishuddha Manusmriti” – an edition that identifies and removes likely interpolated verses. But it has its own editorial issues.
Most recently, however, in 2025, we had Nithin Shridhar’s “Chatuh Sholki Manusmriti,”which analyses the first four verses to provide a broader understanding of the text, dispelling many myths about them on the way. It’s a heavy but important read.
So if someone is challenging you to a debate on the Manusmriti, you should first check if they have actually read the critical versions of Medhatithi, Kulluka Bhatta, Ganganath Jha, and Nitin Shridhar – because if they’ve taken a different source, it may suffer from the political biases of the authors or just poorly done mistranslations.
Which is likely what happened with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Ambedkar was undoubtedly one of the sharpest minds India has ever produced. He made unmatchable contributions to our nation’s socio-political fabric, chief of which was architecting our Constitution.
Unfortunately for us Hindus, he probably had access to the wrong and incomplete versions of the Manusmriti, which made him an active critic of the text. So he alleged that the Manusmriti promoted casteism, which is the oppression of poor or labourer classes of the society by the higher castes like Brahmins. Part of his rage was also fuelled by his real life experiences, seeing the oppression of Dalits and other lower caste people, which was an unfortunate man-made evil that had risen in the shadows of our society.
On December 25, 1927, during the Mahad Satyagraha in Maharashtra, India, it is alleged that he burned the Manusmriti as a demonstration of annihilating “casteism.” This day is now celebrated by his followers as Manusmriti Dahan Diwas every year, and while Babasaheb’s intentions were right, and his cause was sympathetic, the symbolism of his stunt has caused irreparable damage to the public perception of our Hindu community.
Cut to today, scholars like Shridhar and Nityanand Mishra Ji are making extraordinary efforts to reframe the story and bring out the complete truth. So before we even get into the verses to form our views, we have to remember that Hindu scriptures have suffered from two big problems: interpolations (additions) and mistranslations.
Interpolations refer to verses or entire chapters that Hindu scholars contend were added later to our texts to spin certain narratives or messages. For example, Ramayana has an “Uttarkand” chapter, containing several controversial events and episodes but the consensus is that it was almost certainly never a part of the original Valmiki manuscript.
Mistranslations refer to verses where words or their meanings have been twisted, intentionally or unintentionally. An example of this is how some translators of the Rig Veda misunderstood a verse to reach the conclusion Sanatan Dharma allowed or mandated the practice of Sati, which requires a widow to jump into the funeral pyre of her deceased husband.
The Rigveda’s 10th Mandala 18th hymn encourages grieving wives with the famous line “Rise woman, return to the land of living.”
इ॒मा नारी॑रविध॒वाः सु॒पत्नी॒राञ्ज॑नेन स॒र्पिषा॒ सं वि॑शन्तु । अ॒न॒श्रवो॑ऽनमी॒वाः सु॒रत्ना॒ आ रो॑हन्त॒ं जन॑यो॒ योनि॒मग्रे॑ ॥
इमा नारीरविधवाः सुपत्नीराञ्जनेन सर्पिषा सं विशन्तु । अनश्रवोऽनमीवाः सुरत्ना आ रोहन्तु जनयो योनिमग्रे ॥
~ Rig Veda, 18.18.7
But the last word in that verse, “agre”, was mistranslated into “agni” changing its meaning from “moving forward” to “moving into the fire” – this mistranslation, intentional or otherwise, ended up feeding the stereotypes Westerners had about Indians and over-highlighted isolated Sati incidents in Hindu society because it was never a widely practiced Dharmic custom.
Our Vedas themselves not only never mention sati; they discourage it. But because of either ignorance or political agendas, we’re deliberately fed the wrong information.
So before studying the verses of the Manusmriti in isolation, it’s extremely important to be conscious of the source and the overall intent expressed in the surrounding verses. Which brings us to the two important questions – does the Manusmriti say anything against women and certain castes at all? Let’s find out in Part 3.
Part 3: Views on Women
Does the Manusmriti really treat women badly? Is it patriarchal and oppressive like so many people accuse it of being?
On the subject of women, it’s useful to open with Verse 3.56, which says ““Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless.”
यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः ।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः ॥ ५६ ॥
This is not a passing comment as it is made in the chapter about householders, what makes or breaks a society. In fact, in Manu 3.60, it states that a family’s happiness is dependent on the husband and wife being happy with each other. So mutual satisfaction, and not male dominance, is the stated ideal.
सन्तुष्टो भार्यया भर्ता भर्त्रा भार्या तथैव च ।
यस्मिन्नेव कुले नित्यं कल्याणं तत्र वै ध्रुवम् ॥ ६० ॥
Verse 9.28 states, “Off-spring, religious acts, faithful service, highest happiness – all this is dependent on the wife; as also the attainment of heaven by oneself as well as by his forefathers.”
“अपत्यं धर्मकार्याणि शुश्रूषा रतिरुत्तमा ।
दाराऽधीनस्तथा स्वर्गः पितॄणामात्मनश्च ह ॥ २८ ॥”
Later on, Verse 9.95 says, “The husband obtains his wife as a present from the gods, and not by his own wish; hence he should always support the faithful wife, thereby doing what is agreeable to the gods.”
देवदत्तां पतिर्भार्यां विन्दते नेच्छयाऽत्मनः ।
तां साध्वीं बिभृयान्नित्यं देवानां प्रियमाचरन् ॥ ९५ ॥
Additionally, verse 2.145 discusses the importance of some people in one’s life, and places the mother at the top of the table, above the father and teacher.
उपाध्यायान् दशाचार्य आचार्याणां शतं पिता ।
सहस्रं तु पितॄन् माता गौरवेणातिरिच्यते ॥ १४५ ॥
On property: the Manusmriti recognises Stridhana – the wife’s exclusive property, including gifts received before marriage, during marriage, and from her natal family. The text affirms her independent economic sphere.
On violence and consent: verse 8.364 states that a man who sexually violates an unwilling woman or an unmarried girl must be put to death immediately. The text is explicit on this.
And verse 8.323 mandates severe physical punishment for any form of assault. These are not gentle recommendations – they are hard legal mandates.
योऽकामां दूषयेत् कन्यां स सद्यो वधमर्हति ।
सकामां दूषयंस्तुल्यो न वधं प्राप्नुयान्नरः ॥ ३६४ ॥
If the Manusmriti has such forward-looking verses when it comes to women, where does all the hate come from?
This brings us to the other half of the story – verses that are cherry-picked out of context, misunderstood and abused by critics. The first example of this is Manu 9.3, which states “The father guards her during virginity, the husband guards her in youth, the sons guard her in old age; she should not seek independence.”
“पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने ।
रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥ ३ ॥”
The controversy hinges on the word swatantryam. Modern critics translate it as “freedom” or “autonomy.” But Medhatithi, in his Manubhashya, clarifies that in this context swatantryam means a state of being unprotected, unsupported, or abandoned – not independence in the modern sense. As per Medhatithi, the verse is actually placing a legal and moral obligation on men to never leave a woman without support or security. In a society that faced centuries of external invasion and internal instability, this was a protective framework, not an oppressive one.
The next verse that comes under fire is Manu 9.94, which states “A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty four years old, a damsel eight years old; in the event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner.”
त्रिंशद्वर्षो वहेत् कन्यां हृद्यां द्वादशवार्षिकीम् ।
त्र्यष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षां वा धर्मे सीदति सत्वरः ॥ ९४ ॥
Traditional commentators read this as an arthavada – a broad and general recommendation on appropriate age difference rather than a specific numerical mandate. It says that for family planning, there should be some gap between the man and wife.
More importantly, historical records also document that in ancient and classical Indian practice, the marriage ceremony and the consummation of the marriage, in simple words sex between the man and wife, were deliberately separated – the latter was expected only at maturity. So child marriage as a consummated institution is not what the verse describes in its historical context.
On the subject of marriage, Manusmriti is also falsely accused of sanctioning non-consensual sex. The verse used to make this wrong accusation is Manu 3.21, which mentions different categories of Vivaha. This includes Rakshasa Vivaha, forced abduction of a bride, and Paisacha Vivaha, uniting with a woman who is tricked, intoxicated and unconscious. This argument is extremely out of context.
The word “vivaha” in Hindu context is not the same as the modern Western or Christian “marriage” as we know it today, which is more of a social contract. Vivaha signifies union, with or without the knowledge of society or a stamp paper. The four types of vivaha that are generally permitted by scripture are Brahma Vivaha, Daiva Vivaha, Asrsha Vivaha, and Prajapatya Vivaha.
However, mentioning Asura and Rakshasa Vivaha does not automatically make them valid. If anything, in the next verse, namely Manu 3.25, the scripture itself declares they should never be adopted, deeming them unlawful and wicked. So to those making the accusation, please read the whole book!
पञ्चानां तु त्रयो धर्म्या द्वावधर्म्यौ स्मृताविह ।
पैशाचश्चासुरश्चैव न कर्तव्यौ कदा चन ॥ २५ ॥
More broadly, it’s said that Manusmriti excludes women from the spiritual path. This is not entirely true. Women in those times used to undergo the physical tolls of mensturation, pregnancy and childbirth – these they had to endure without the modern sanitary products, hospitals and medical infrastructure that we have today. And so rigorous Vedic rituals and recitation were deemed impractical for them.
Women were then prescribed Karma Yoga – household duties or governing the village and society, along with a stress on Bhakti (devotion) and Seva (service) as the primary paths for spiritual liberation. In conclusion, women were more than allowed to practice and show their Bhakti towards God. And in 6.47, Krishna declares Bhakti as the highest path to Moksha, so where’s the disrespect?
योगिनामपि सर्वेषां मद्गतेनान्तरात्मना ।
श्रद्धावान्भजते यो मां स मे युक्ततमो मत: ॥ ४७ ॥ – Srimad Bhagavad Gita, 4.67
“And of all yogīs, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself and renders transcendental loving service to Me – he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.” ~ Sri Krishna
Unfortunately, in some verses, the debate gets really tough. So let’s move to that section of verses which are tricky, highly layered and hence, quickly taken out of context.
Verses 9.14 to 9.18 state that when women are not guarded, they injure their husbands. They are assigned to sleep, sit, lust, be angry, dishonest and bad conduct. There is no dealing with the sacred texts. In close relation, verse 2.213 states that it is in the nature of women to corrupt men.
Again, the people who quote these verses haven’t read the full scripture, so they miss just the Verse before it, Manu 9.13, which states that the qualities being mentioned are those of evil and corrupted women, who drink and associate with wicked people. They are not generalisations.
“नैता रूपं परीक्षन्ते नासां वयसि संस्थितिः ।
सुरूपं वा विरूपं वा पुमानित्येव भुञ्जते ॥ १४ ॥”
“पौंश्चल्याच्चलचित्ताच्च नैस्नेह्याच्च स्वभावतः ।
रक्षिता यत्नतोऽपीह भर्तृष्वेता विकुर्वते ॥ १५ ॥”
“एवं स्वभावं ज्ञात्वाऽसां प्रजापतिनिसर्गजम् ।
परमं यत्नमातिष्ठेत् पुरुषो रक्षणं प्रति ॥ १६ ॥”
“शय्याऽऽसनमलङ्कारं कामं क्रोधमनार्जवम् ।
द्रोहभावं कुचर्यां च स्त्रीभ्यो मनुरकल्पयत् ॥ १७ ॥”
“नास्ति स्त्रीणां क्रिया मन्त्रैरिति धर्मे व्यवस्थितिः ।
निरिन्द्रिया ह्यमन्त्राश्च स्त्रीभ्यो अनृतमिति स्थितिः ॥ १८ ॥”
Regardless, commentators like Medhatithi and Acharya Sarvajnananarayana have clearly said that these are not comments on women but rather warnings for young men, who are expected to practice strict brahmacharya or celibacy during their student stage of life. These verses serve more as scare tactics, talking about the general nature of a man who is influenced by desire and anger, causing him to lead astray.
Next up in the spotlight is verse 9.78, which says that the wife should be punished if she disregards her husband who is mad, intoxicated or afflicted by disease. Again, this verse is heavily misunderstood. Medatithi clarifies that it does not refer to general disobedience but the specific case of not caring for, or neglecting your partner when they are distracted or ill.
Women are not forced to tolerate abuse. And we can say this with certainty Because the next verse, 9.79 clearly states “If, however, she shows aversion to one who is mad, or an outcast, or impotent, or seedless, or afflicted with foul disease, there shall be no desertion, nor the wresting of her property.” It means that she cannot be legally punished, abandoned by the family, or stripped off her personal property.
“अतिक्रामेत् प्रमत्तं या मत्तं रोगार्तमेव वा ।
सा त्रीन् मासान् परित्याज्या विभूषणपरिच्छदा ॥ ७८ ॥”
“उन्मत्तं पतितं क्लीबमबीजं पापरोगिणम् ।
न त्यागोऽस्ति द्विषन्त्याश्च न च दायापवर्तनम् ॥ ७९ ॥”
Whatever may be the case with such verses, if anyone quotes them, we need to ask critical questions before forming our opinions: Do they contradict any other text in the whole book? Have commentators addressed them or set them aside?
And even then, Sanatan doesn’t require us to treat every line of the Smriti as the binding truth – the tradition places emphasis on sadachara (righteous conduct) above everything else, so as our society evolves, as women’s lives evolve, we should be adapting our beliefs and actions, rather than trying to align statements written thousands of years ago.
Unfortunately, being sexist is not the only charge made against the Manusmriti. The bigger debate is around its thoughts on casteism. So that’s what we’ll tackle next.
Part 4: Views on Varna/Caste
Does the Manusmriti allow people to be oppressed? Is it really biased towards Brahmins and disrespectful towards Shudras?
Critics of this book allege that it promotes casteism – which is discrimination towards a lower or labourer section of society by the upper classes in power. And caste, they say, is a rigid birth-based system created by Sanatan Dharma. Is that really the whole truth?
Before we form our opinions, let’s actually take a step back and look at the verses. At the start of the book, we’re actually introduced not to caste but a very different concept, Varna.
Varna actually means one’s ritual state, which is basically a fancy way of saying one’s inherent, inborn, natural qualities. We all say that this child is naturally introverted or that man is naturally short-tempered so why do we have a problem with the theory that says all of us are born with natural tendencies, depending on the mix of the three gunas in us?
Here, gunas refer to the three elemental building blocks – sattva, rajas and tamas – that make up everything in this universe, including us. Neither of them are fully bad, as they all serve a purpose, but overall, having more sattva helps us grow spiritually.
Manusmriti explains that Prajapati a.k.a the Brahman or the Supreme Being, in an act of yajnya or sacrifice, created the chatur varnas Himself, and gave each one of us a Varna Devata, a deity or power that governs us. Verse 10.4 states that there are four varnas: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra. There is no fifth varna.
“ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियो वैश्यस्त्रयो वर्णा द्विजातयः ।
चतुर्थ एकजातिस्तु शूद्रो नास्ति तु पञ्चमः ॥ ४ ॥”
Basically, as per this theory, Brahmins have “Brahmantava,” a kind of spiritual chemistry or DNA, that makes them who they are. This applies to the other varnas as well. Each of the four varnas has a specific mix of sattva, rajas and tamas. One of the three is dominant, while the other is secondary, and the third is dormant.
The logic behind this system was that acting as per one’s tendencies, or in other words, doing one’s “svadharma” will allow one to get the highest possible merit that one can gain in this lifetime. The Brahmins were tasked with preserving knowledge, the Kshatriyas with governance, the Vaishyas with trade, and Shudras with service, arts, skills and labour.
Manusmriti also explains how three factors decide one’s inherent varna: janma or birth, guna-svabhava or inner tendencies, and svadharma karma or one’s duties & activities which are in sync with one’s svabhava. Out of these, it does clarify that the person’s janma or birth matters the most. This is because it’s the father who primarily gives birth to a copy of himself through the woman, so the child inherits the father’s varna.
This does not mean that your varna is not in your control. In Sanatan, we believe in the idea of Prarabdha karma, actions from your past lives, that determines the parents you’ll be born to. And even if you’re born in any varna, it is not yet “vyakta” i.e. “activated” or “manifested” until your samskaras or daily rituals and duties are performed. At birth, Varna is avyakta, unmanifest, only functional if one continues following their svadharma. So as per Manu 11.97, if Brahmins fail to do their duties or indulge in sin and vices, they lose the claim to their varna.
“यस्य कायगतं ब्रह्म मद्येनाप्लाव्यते सकृत् ।
तस्य व्यपैति ब्राह्मण्यं शूद्रत्वं च स गच्छति ॥ ९७ ॥”
Also, Varna was never rigid and fixed in practice. Firstly, for one to become a dvija (twice born) with the upanayana sacred thread ceremony, and therefore gain the eligibility to study the Vedas, they must belong to any of ten categories, many of which do not necessarily mean being born to a Brahmin father. This includes: jnananda (one who teaches something in return), suci (one who is pure), sakta (one who is capable of receiving knowledge) and so on.
Also, we have many examples of Brahmins like Rishyasringa being born of a deer, Vyasa from a Fisher Woman, Agastya from a Pot, Vashishta from the celestial nymph Urvashi, etc. who do not fit the requirement of having been born into a Brahmin family. So Varna, in its original form, was intended to be fluid and inclusive.
Then over time, people of different jaatis (occupations) started clustering together into smaller communities, like metal workers, shoemakers, hair cutters and so on.
What happened, then? Two huge factors, one is internal and the other is external.
First, as the population grew, jaatis became more and more rigid – a hair cutter’s son could only follow the same occupation. Some castes started being discriminated against, dehumanised and oppressed, by upper classes who manipulated the scriptures to award themselves with power, hoarding more and more of it over the centuries.
But the interesting fact to note is that every time such social man-made evils have sprung up in Hindu society, Dharma has always sent missionaries to speak up against such adharma. We had bhakti saints like Sant Tukaram, Sant Jnyaneshwar, Mirabai, Sant Namdev, Samartha Ramdas Swami, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu – spread across centuries and regions – who actively fought against all forms of discrimination and inequality, uniting millions of common people in the masses to rise, sing and dance in Shri Hari’s name.
Second, our British colonizers also took advantage of this system to seal their control over our masses. Research done by historian Dharampal exposed that the pre-colonial Indian society was much more liberal than the Britishers made us believe. Records from the 1820s Madras Presidency show that Shudras and so-called lower-caste communities actually comprised the majority of students in local village schools.
However, to make their administration convenient, the British census of 187 systematically codified India’s fluid identities into fixed legal categories, freezing a social system that had a lot of regional variations and mobility – their engineering made it look our varna vyavastha bureaucratic and rigid, which it largely never was.
Today, ask any educated sane Hindu and they will never support any kind of oppression because our Dharma asks us to see the divine in every being, so how can our scriptures and community support casteism? It is a social evil and the fight against it will always be part of Hinduism’s story, not a chapter against it.
Now that we’ve explored Varna in depth, where Manusmriti comes under controversy is its dealings with the varnas of Brahmins and Shudras, with critics arguing that it provides Brahmins with the ammunition to abuse Shudras and hoard, while making life difficult for Shudras in general. This is again baseless and ill-informed.
Let’s actually start with Shudras. As per the Rig Veda’s Purusha Sutka, 10.90.12, the Shudra is said to have developed from the feet of the Divine Cosmic Being, while Brahmins come from the Mouth, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Rajanya or Kshatriya from arms.
This is misinterpreted as the Shudra being considered inferior or unworthy of respect. But this verse explains the functions of the varnas, not their moral statuses. It is your feet that help you walk, run and actually live life, supporting your entire body, which is what the Shudra has as their svadharma. Brahmins are responsible for knowledge through speech, hence the mouth, while Vaishyas provide economic support and stability, hence the thighs, and Kshatriyas direct, defend and expand, hence the arms.
With that myth out of the way, let’s understand how Hindu scripture, including Manusmriti, actually view the Shudra. The first wrong accusation is that the Shudras are excluded from practicing Dharma. This is untrue. What is prohibited in Manu 4.80 is the formal shastric teaching of the Veda, not the general sharing of knowledge about Dharma. Verse 4.80 does not prohibit imparting knowledge about dharma, it is merely related to direct instruction.
“न शूद्राय मतिं दद्यान्नोच्छिष्टं न हविष्कृतम् ।
न चास्योपदिशेद् धर्मं न चास्य व्रतमादिशेत् ॥ ८० ॥”
To give an example, anyone can look up Harvard or Stanford lectures on YouTube, flip through the textbooks they have, or access their resources and library. But only those who have passed certain requirements and exams can actually go to those colleges. The same goes for the difference between formally studying the Vedas under a guru, and knowing their essence to use in daily life. Shudras are more than invited to do the latter, and practice Shudra Dharma, which is made clear in Verses 10.127-128.
They note, “If those who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt, they obtain praise. As the Shudra, free from envy, maintains the right course of conduct, so does he, free from blame, gain this world and the next.”
“धर्मैप्सवस्तु धर्मज्ञाः सतां वृत्तमनुष्ठिताः ।
मन्त्रवर्ज्यं न दुष्यन्ति प्रशंसां प्राप्नुवन्ति च ॥ १२७ ॥”
“यथा यथा हि सद्वृत्तमातिष्ठत्यनसूयकः ।
तथा तथैमं चामुं च लोकं प्राप्नोत्यनिन्दितः ॥ १२८ ॥”
In short, the Manusmriti clarifies that Shudras can attain salvation through devotion (Bhakti), chanting (Japa), and righteous conduct.
What most people don’t know is that in “The Sudracarasiromani of Krsna Sesa,” which is a 16th Century manual of Dharma for Shudras, we find a list of at least 49 texts composed between 1360-1660 to specifically address the ritualistic and spiritual requirements for shudras.
And what exactly constitutes Shudra Dharma? The rules are actually much simpler and the expectations are quite low as compared to what we’ll see on the Brahmin’s side of things.
In fact, the rules governing the Shudras comprise about only a dozen or less verses.
In a sister textbook of Manusmriti, the Yajnyavalkya Smriti, in Verse 1.121, states that Shudra should be attached to his wife, be pure, maintain those who depend on him for support, and perform Shraddha ceremonies. This is echoed in the Manusmriti, too.
भार्यारतिः शुचिर् भृत्यभर्ता श्राद्धक्रियारतः ।
नमस्कारेण मन्त्रेण पञ्चयज्ञान् न हापयेत् ॥ १२१ ॥ – Yajnyavalkya Smriti, 1.121
On the other hand, the punishment for violating rules is up to 64 to 100 times greater for Brahmins than that of a Shudra, because a Brahmin is expected to know the rules better due to their rigorous education.
In fact, that brings us to the second half of the story. Far from being biased towards Brahmins, Manusmriti is a nightmare for anyone looking to abuse their Brahmin status. Firstly, a Brahmin’s life has been described to be extremely difficult and austere. They have to bear the burden of studying and teaching the Vedas, which are intensely dense and cryptic to decode. Not only that, they must perform sacrifices or yajynas to appease the Gods and elements regularly.
They must spend a large portion of their life in strict celibacy, which means no sex and sexual acts. They must sleep on the ground without a bed, beg for food as alms, and are strictly prohibited from consuming alcohol, meat, onions and garlic. In old age, they must abandon the village and live primarily on uncultivated food.
“अग्नीन्धनं भैक्षचर्यामधःशय्यां गुरोर्हितम् ।
आ समावर्तनात् कुर्यात् कृतोपनयनो द्विजः ॥ १०८ ॥”
As for punishments, if a Brahmin commits the sin of drinking alcohol, the prescribed prayaschitta is to drink boiling, red-hot liquor until their entire body burns from the inside. It’s that brutal. The punishments for Brahmins are higher in many degrees than for other varnas so the text is far from soft on them. An unrighteous Brahmin loses their merit and falls into the darkest hells.
Taken together, these insights show us that Manusmriti in its original form had all the right intentions to equally benefit all sections of the society, as is the case with all Hindu scriptures.
With that, we end the controversy regarding Manusmriti and caste. So where do these discussions leave us now? Let’s begin to summarise our findings in the final chapter.
Part 5: Forming Conclusions
How do we approach Manusmriti in modern times? Based on all the discussions we’ve had so far, what’s the final conclusion?
Overall, before we stand on any side of the Manusmriti debate, we have to understand that it has grown far from being one scripture to a political propaganda tool used to shame, attack and convert Hindu or Sanatani followers.
So when the other side simply refuses to acknowledge the facts that scholars are now exposing, it tells us a lot about why they’re attacking or critiquing it – not because they are against what it says, or think that it’s the reason for exploitation, but because it can be used as a soft target to manipulate your entire view about Sanatan Dharma. So let’s keep the agendas in mind before we form our views.
Secondly, the Manusmriti is one of thousands of Sanatani scriptures. We have the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Itihasas like the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the 108 Upanishads, 18 Maha Puranas, and so many other beautiful textbooks. What we know as Dharma is the average essence of the teachings taken from all these books, not from just one of them.
Just as we upgrade our phone’s operating system but keep the hardware, Sanatan Dharma keeps the Vedic Hardware of values like Truth, Non-violence, Self-realization, etc. but upgrades the Smriti Software (which are the social laws) to fit the current Yuga. So we respect the Manusmriti as a historical road map of how our ancestors managed a complex society, but we must drive our cars using the maps of today.
That said, what is written in Manusmriti is not to be dismissed as “thoughts of that era/time” – it is still timeless wisdom, sometimes misinterpreted given our current sociopolitical beliefs. “Whatever Manu said is medicine,” says the Taittiriya Samhita 2.2.10.2 of the Krishna Yajur Veda, comparing Manu Maharaj’s words to sweet, wholesome nectar & medicine that is capable of healing the world.
To recap everything, in this series, we started by locating the Manusmriti amongst different scriptures of Sanatan Dharma. We looked at how it evolved as a scripture over time with so many authors involved in translating it. We dispelled the myths about it being anti-women and casteist. And finally, we concluded by saying we should view it in a broader scheme of things, and use it as inspiration to understand Dharma deeply.
Reading the scholarly versions and commentaries of Manusmriti, like the 2025 version by Nitin Shridhar, can help you get genuine insights on Hindu view towards society and the entire universe itself. It is actually quite an eye-opening text, albeit a long one. So read it with the intention of understanding the overall message, which is how to follow one’s Dharma properly – this is a positive, encouraging and productive tone – none of it is meant to be oppressive, dark or evil.
In conclusion, let us give the Manusmriti the respect it deserves, pray to the great Manu Maharaj who brought us this gem, and firmly stand by our Dharma, because it is only our faith that has kept us alive so far, and our faith which will take us ahead!
References
Jha, G. (1920–1926). Manusmriti with the ‘Manubhāṣya’ of Medhātithi (Vols. 1–5). University of Calcutta.
Shridhar, N. (2025). Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: An English Commentary. Vitasta Publishing Private Limited.
The Sanskrit Channel. (n.d.). Moral or evil: Decoding the original Manu Smriti (Manava Dharma Shastra) in Sanskrit [Video]. YouTube.
Kalal, D. (n.d.). When Ambedkar chose fire: Manusmriti Dahan Divas and the struggle for equality. Hindus for Human Rights.
Hyper Quest. (n.d.). I Read MANUSMRITI – The book most Hindus avoid reading! | Hyper Quest [Video]. YouTube.
Bharat Voice. (n.d.). Decoding Manusmriti – Nithin Sridhar, author of “Chathuh Shloki Manusmriti An English Commentary” [Video]. YouTube.
Kumar, S. (2021, May 27). Vishuddha Manusmriti (8th ed.). Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/vishuddha-manusmriti-dr.-surendra-kumar.
Project SHIVOHAM. (n.d.). The hidden history of MANU SMRITI [Video]. YouTube.
Sangam Talks. (n.d.). Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: Shastra for spiritual, material well-being | Nithin Sridhar | Halley Kalyan [Video]. YouTube.
