THE ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY,

HYDERABAD-500007.

Course Title: - Liveable Learning

Final Project

Topic: A reading of the Introductions of William Jones, George Buhler and

Patrick Olivelle’s translation of Manusmriti.

Submitted To: Dr. D. Venkat Rao

Date: 25-11-15

Submitted By: Abhishek.S,

H-1669,
3rd sem.
 Contents:

I. Introduction

II. The task of translating Manusmriti

III. A brief note on the authors

a) William Jones

b) Georg Buhler

c) Patrick Olivelle

IV. A brief Summary of the Introductions

V. Primordial objectives in the textual rendering of Manusmriti

a) Authorial agency

b) Structure and style of composition: Narratology, Language, and Meter

c) Title

d) Chronology

e) Commentaries and Interpolations

f) Manusmriti as a text of Contradictions

VI. Misapprehensions and Infliction of Violence in the translation

VII. Manusmriti as a colonial project

VIII. Debunking the forced reading with renewed insights

IX. Conclusion

X. Bibliography
 Introduction

India with its radical and highly heterogeneous ethnographic entities has constantly been the

store-house of vast languages and cultures where most of the inhabitants are characterized by

features like bi-lingual or tri-lingual; profound faculty of memory; and living with practices

that are highly singular and yet centripetal in nature so as to even encompass people of

different space and cultures and in-turn directing towards that primordial originary source

which can be the root of proliferation of the people. And that store house is engulfed with a

rich literary heritage that in-turn has been the promulgating source of knowledge to the

world. The conspicuous feature of cultures and practices of India is the ‘endurability’ where

by endurance I mean to include both long-lastingness and tolerance of time (Venkat Rao;

class notes). So, the cultures and practices of India are constantly subjected to inquiries

largely led by the non-natives.

Creativity and reflective knowledge in this epoch is largely determined by communication

(Vnekat Rao; class notes) and for a longer time period the communicative media of India is

remarkably oral. Thus India like the other Asiatic and African countries is largely

‘mnemocultural’ where the cultures are articulated through memory. So, even the literary

compositions of India that are majorly in the Sanskrit language are oral. And the

demonstration of such literary compositions takes place through narrations, songs,

enactments and other bodily performances. So, the two major classic epics of India,

Ramayana and Mahabharata unlike now have never been written down but are passed down

from generations to generations through songs and acts. And another such significant literary

composition in verses, that is the main object of study of my project is ‘Manava-

dharmasastra’ or popularly known as ‘Manusmriti’.

Manusmriti is one such composition on dharma and duties (not on rights) that has gained the

significant acclaim even in the regions like Burma, Myanmar, and Indonesia. There have

been many compilations of Manusmriti by the famous indologists and philologists like

William Jones, Buhler, Dolly, Kane, Mandlik, Jolly, Lingat and Olivelle and many more.

Many widely read scholars like Friedrich Nietzsche, Sheldon Pollock, Washburn Hopkins,

and Max Muller have penned down their hypothesis on this composition.

Indeed being the first translated text of Sanskrit into English language, Manusmriti has been

the subject of constant inquiries, which is acknowledged as the antique text meant to be the

guardian of the culture of the pre-colonial India. But often the vantage point of such inquiries

is distorted and as produced exhaustive convoluted and misleading readings. Because the

vantage point of such inquires are not constituted through the object itself and such inquiries

lies not in the very realm of the object, but far away from it, where the normative schemata of

thus formed analysis of the inquires are highly Eurocentric. Here the academic institutions of

the West has largely structured the reading of Manusmriti which in turn has generated the

most contorted reading of Manu and further a large platform has been built for the

construction of the prejudiced representation of the India by often highlighting all the

negative and falsified notions of its traditions in the most obscure and ambiguous form. Thus,

as a result, the initiative steps of Ambedkar as he launched a movement called ‘Manusmriti

Dahan Divas’ to burn the book have been the influencing factor that led and still leading to

many incidents in the passages of the history of India where the composition: Manusmriti

was burnt amidst the mass gatherings and it is the only one such composition that has been

considered as the most burnt book in India.

As Patrick Olivelle says, “Fame invites controversy, and in India itself during the 20th century

Manu became a lightning rod for both the conservative elements of the Hindu tradition and

the liberal movements intent on alleviating the plight of women and low-caste and outcaste
individuals....even the prominent women’s right advocate, Madhu Kishwar had to do battle

with Manu” (Manu’s code of law; Pg.No-04). Madhu Kishwar certifies Manusmriti in the

Rajasthan High Court as “...the ancient text is the defining document of Brahmanical

Hinduism, and also the key source of gender and caste oppression in India”. Thus Manusmriti

emerged as the most widely read and maligned text under the influence of colonialism.

Now, as Olivelle says, “...the study of the text itself has been neglected. More heat, literal and

metahphorical, has been generated than light. Until now even a close examination of the

numerous extant manuscripts of this work....has not been undertaken. Without taking any

position about the social value of the Mdh (Manava-dharmasastra), I would hope that we

could take the trouble to read the text with the attention it deserves before we praise,

condemn or burn it”, I for one not keen on addressing the vastly addressed issues of

Manusmriti with regards to the women and low-caste, and more over there has been enough

materials readily available in various texts and in virtual space on such issues that just plainly

leads to controversies that are dry of knowledge constructions and so in this project work I

would largely confine myself to the text and enunciate my observations influenced with the

class readings on the reception, interpretation, analysis and translation of Manusmriti.

But my task in this project is precisely not only to present the inflicted violence in the process

of translation but also to cast off these biased Western views or western influenced reading of

Manusmriti and thereafter approach the composition with a new refined outlook that in-turn

in an affirming way draw the contrasts between inherited tradition and the forced inflicted

tradition of the colonizers on us. Yes, an epistemological violence is always the undercurrent

when one’s culture is seen and read by the ways and methods of the populist culture. So, my

task in this presentation is to reflect on the readings of Manusmriti of William Jones, Georg

Buhler, and Patrick Olivelle by primarily focusing on their introductions to such composition.
 The task of translating Manusmriti

Manusmriti as mentioned earlier was well acclaimed even in regions like Burma, Myanmar

and Indonesia and as noted by Olivelle that the composition itself refers to the several ethnic

groups prevailing in the country in chapter-10 and verse-44 where Manu mentions that

Yavana (Greek), Saka (central Asia), Kamboja (Afghan and Tajikistan region), Pahlava

(Parhtian/Persian), and Cina (Chin dynasty) are all Kshatriyas who have fallen to the level of

Sudras by neglecting the neglecting rites and failing to honour Brahmin properly. This

roughly indicates at the popular presence of the Manusmriti even before the advent of British

East India Company. But not until the influence of the Britain that the large manuscripts of

Mansmriti was gathered together and initiative steps of compiling the manuscripts was taken-

up. But what was the need to compile and translate such text is the question that keeps

haunting one at the back of the mind. Yes, was it to know the literary heritage that such text

was meant to be translated or was there any other purposes of the council of the East India

Company to promote such a compilation and translation.

As the Britain’s East India Company, hold on the country got stronger; Warren Hastings

became the first Governor General of India from 1773 to till 1785. Now, he was advised by

his board members to work for the cause of administering civil justice and policy executions.

So, Hastings and his infamous Bengal squad 1were coming up with a proposal of setting up

the company’s firm administration in India.

After the conquest of the land; administration, Law procedures so as to guard the just or to

legitimately resolve the conflicts, and policy framing are the essential features of establishing

ones governance on the subjects. Partha Chatterjee characterizes a nation with two dominant

1
) Bengal squad:- The group that followed Hastings to England consisted of Halhed, David Anderson, Major
William Sands, Colonel Sweeney Toone, Dr. Clement Francis, Captain Jonathan Scott, John Shore, Lieutenant
Col. William Popham, Sir John d'Oyly and were active members of Asiatic society of Bengal.
features called outer domain (material domain) and inner domain (spiritual domain) where

the material domain comprises with social and political institutions outsourcing knowledge

(statecraft, science and technology) and the spiritual domain comprises of singular cultural

entities that is unique to a nation (Whose Imagined Community; Pg.No.-03). So, the

colonizers were desperate to gain access of the inner domain of the colonies because they

were evident of the fact that the best and rather least strenuous way to emphasize the rule on

the other is to make sure that the other isn’t even aware of being ruled. Here the inner domain

includes the language and the language compositions (verses, drama and novella); society

and societal compositions like neighbour-hoods and families (individuals and women).

So, Bernard Cohn in his “Colonialism and its forms of Knowledge: The British in India”

reckons to the fact that, Warren Hastings knew the importance of knowing the knowledge,

customs and traditions of the natives for the effective establishment of the governance as he

says, “Every application of knowledge and especially such as is obtained in social

communication with people, over whom we exercise dominion, founded on the right of

conquest, is useful to the state ... It attracts and conciliates distant affections, it lessens the

weight of the chain by which the natives are held in subjection and it imprints on the hearts of

our countrymen the sense of obligation and benevolence... Every instance which brings their

real character will impress us with more generous sense of feeling for their natural rights, and

teach us to estimate them by the measure of our own... But such instances can only be gained

in their writings; and these will survive when British domination in India shall have long

ceased to exist, and when the sources which once yielded of wealth and power are lost to

remembrance”.
Thus the Judicial Plan of 1772 states that “all suits regarding the inheritance, marriage, caste

and other religious usages, or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mohametans

and those of the Shaster with respect to Gentoos2 shall be invariably adhered to.”

So, the team of Hastings decided to rule the natives with their own personal laws that can be

derived from their own compositions. Hence in-order to rule the Gentoos a committee of 11

Brahmin Pundits was formed who were given the task of compiling the Hindu personal law.

So, the pandits began to assimilate a text from various sources and which they named

as Vivadarnavasetu or the sea of litigations. Later this was translated into Persian language by

Zaid ud-Din Ali Rasai. Then, Halhed translated the Persian text into English which was

closely presided by Hastings himself. The translation was complete by the year 1776 by

Nathaniel Halhed who was also a renowned Orientalist and Philologist and further he named

it as “A Code of Gentoo Laws or Ordinations of Pandits”. This translation of Halhed is

considered to be the first translation of Manusmriti into English language.

A brief note on the authors

William Jones:

Sir William Jones was born in 1746 and died in 1794 was a Puisne Judge of Supreme Court

of Judicature, and also a Philologist. Being a Hyper-glotist who knew more than 28

languages, Jones developed a genetic relation between Indo-European languages. And he was

also the first to propagate the racial division with the Aryan invasion within India. William

Jones profound knowledge in the Indological studies is considered to be unrivalled. Then his

further contributions include the establishment of the ‘Asiatic Society of Bengal’ in 1784

along with its journal called ‘Asiatick Researches’ and the translation of Manusmriti in 1794.

2
) Gentoos:- the term used before the coining of the term Hindu where Gentoo is either derived from the
Portuguese word Gentio meaning gentile, heathen or native where the Portuguese used it to distinguish the
native Indians from Muslim Moros or Moors; or Halhed might have taken the term from Sanskrit word Jantu
meaning mankind or animal.
 Georg Buhler:

Georg Buhler, who was a renowned translator and a professor of oriental studies, was born in

1837 and died in 1898. His Scholarship includes the publication of the

oldest Prakrit dictionary and the translation of the vol.2, 14 and 25 of Max Muller’s “The

Scared Books of the East”.

Patrick Olivelle:

Patrick Olivelle a Srilankan born student of the University of Oxford specialized in Sanskrit

and Indian studies covering the topics of Ashrama system, Dharma, Law and religion. He

taught at the Department of religious studies at the Indiana University and later he chaired the

department of Asian Studies in the University of Texas from 1997 to 2007.

He bagged awards as his early work on the translation of the Upanishads received critical

acclamations from the critics. He was elected as the Vice President of the American Oriental

Society in 2004 and as well as in 2005. Among his popular works on Vedas and Upanishads,

his work on Manusmriti edited by Suman Olivelle and published in 2004 has also gathered

the attention of the vast readers.

Summary of the Introductions

Such was the task of compiling the manuscripts and translating it into English that Patrick

Olivelle in his own words in the preface to his “Manu’s code of Law” says, “Little did I

realize that it would take a dozen years to complete the project, nor did I have any idea how

complex, labor-intensive, and time-consuming it would be. I am glad that I didn’t have the

foresight to know then what I know now in hindsight; if I did I would never have undertaken

it” (Pg.No.-05).
Olivelle most appropriately and in a very schematic mode structures his introduction to

composition Manu’s Code of Law. And the schematic order is given below.

1. Authorship and Composition

a) The Structure

b) Author, Title and Date

c) Narrative structure and composition

d) The Socio-political background

2. Sources of Manu: The traditions of dharma and artha

3. The Work of Redactors

4. Nature and Purpose of Treatise

5. Manu and the Later dharma Tradition

William Jones in the very beginning of his introduction to the Graves Haughton’s edition of

Manusmriti describes that his principle motives “to know and to publish” Manusmriti, so as

to let the Indians be in the possession of their laws which in turn confirms the colonial

administration as he says, “an object that can be attained when the manners and opinions can

be fully and accurately known” (Pg.No.-18). The time period of the composition of the text is

very elaborately discussed. Then he (Jones) draws some parallel comparisons between Manu

and Minos and similarly between Sanskrit and Egyptian institutes of law. Later Jones shares

the remarks given by Vedas, Vrihaspathi, Vyasa and others on the legacy of Manu. Lastly

Jones focuses on the four commentators of Manusmriti like Medhatithi— “reckoned prolix

and unequal”, Govindaraj– “concise but obscure”, and Dharani–“often erroneous”. Finally

Jones speaks about Kulluca Bhatta whom he has almost “implicitly” followed in his

translation and thus the cover page of the book says, “According to the gloss of Culluca”.
Then he discusses about the sanctity offered to the text and the hardships he encountered in

reading and accessing the text as he says, “but they must explain it only to their pupils of the

three highest classes; and the Brahmen, who read it with me, requested most earnestly, that

his name might be concealed; nor would they he have read it for any consideration on a

forbidden day of the moon, or without the ceremonies prescribed in the second and fourth

chapters for a lecture on the Veda: so great, indeed, is the idea of sanctity annexed to his

book, that, when the chief native magistrate at Banares endeavored, at my request, to procure

a Persian translation of it, before I had a hope of being at any time able to understand the

original, the pundits of his court unanimously and positively refused to assist in the work; nor

should I have procured it at all, if a wealthy Hindu at Gaya had not caused the version to be

made by some of his dependants, at the desire of my friend Mr. Law” (Pg.No.-30).

Later he concludes his preface by constant contrasts and accusations like some practices are

rigid, superstitious, and obscure as he says, “…many beauties, which need not be pointed out,

and with many blemishes, which cannot be justified or palliated, It is a system of despotism

and priest-craft, both indeed limited by law, but artfully conspiring to give mutual support,

though with mutual checks; it is filled with strange conceits in metaphysics and natural

philosophy, with idle superstitions, and with a scheme of theology most obscurely figurative,

and consequently liable to dangerous misconception; it abounds with minute and childish

formalities, with ceremonies generally absurd and often ridiculous; the punishments are

partial and fanciful; for some crimes, dreadfully cruel, for others reprehensibly slight; and the

very morals, though rigid…” (Pg.No.-31)

Buhler in the very opening of his introduction speaks about the difficulty in the ‘historical

problems’ where he faces with the challenge of scanty materials and those materials which in

part belongs to the ‘floating traditions of the of uncertain origin’. He says, “...they

(dharmasutras) do not intend to be anything more than the composition of ordinary mortals
 based on the teaching of the Vedas, on the decisions of those who are acquainted with the law

and on the customs of virtuous Aryans” (Pg.No.-14).

Then on the other-hand, Buhler divides his introduction into 3 parts.

1. The origin of Manusmriti according to the Hindus.

2. The Manava Dharmasastra converted into a metrical Smriti.

a) The Manava Dh.S chosen for conversion on accounts of myths regarding Manu

b) Old and New parts of the work

c) Sources of editions made by the editor of metrical version

d) Position of Bhrigu’s Samhita among the various metrical recessions.

e) Probable date of Bhrigu’s Samhita.

3. The commentaries of Manu and principles of translation.

Apart from Olivelle who initially by quoting the observations of Lavriviere and Sheldon

Pollock in the section: “Nature and purpose of the treatise” sets his approach with Manusmriti

with right momentum but at the end Patrick falls prey to the common reading of Manusmriti

and then even along with the comparison of Jones and Buhler, they all largely confine

themselves to reckon Manusmriti has a historio-ethnographical work that is only a

composition framing certain laws and rules for Hindus. And so their introductions is all about

the inquiry on authorship, date of composition, narrative style, contradictions and

commentaries and the most cardinal factors like dharmic, circle of life and death, karma,

existence are largely bracketed and ignored whereas the normative approach has been

employed by highlighting the rigid rules on women, penance and purification, food habits

and the respective eight and two verses on Vaisyas and Shudras.
 Primordial objectives in the textual rendering of Manusmriti

In this section I shall briefly elaborate the major concerns of all the three writers: William

Jones; Georg Buhler and Patrick Olivelle as mentioned and discussed in their introductions.

Much of all the writers articulation in their entire introductions can be categorized as below

for over convenient study.

Authorial agency:

Authorial agentive force appears to be the most major concern of the three writers as if once

the author has been discovered the layered and sedimented meanings of the composition can

be effortlessly unearthed. Though the very text preaches and celebrates the idea of ‘Nimitha’

meaning accidental (medium), the readers and critic take on a vain quest to seek the intent

authorial force of the composition as if the presence of only such force can confirm the

authenticity. So, Buhler with regards to authenticity is seen saying, “the important point is

though the text of the Dharma-sutras has not always been preserved with perfect purity, they

have retained the original character” (Pg.No.-17). William Jones is seen contemplating more

on authenticity rather the authorship where he says, “...the whole dramatic arrangement of the

book is clearly fictitious and ornamental...stamping authority on the work by the introduction

of the supernatural personages”. Further Jones is seen in terms with the fact that Manusmriti

is the work of Manu and his disciples.

Georg Buhler in the 1886 itself had put-up a remarkable argument in the favour of unitary

authorship and opposing the textual evolution. Even in his introduction Buhler considers

Manusmriti as narrated by Manu and then compiled by his student Bhrigu. But however, both

Buhler and Olivelle firmly believe that Manusmriti is entirely composed by one writer or else

Olivelle especially believes that by one single committee with a good number of research

assistants headed by one strong chairman.

Olivelle is even seen challenging the notion of Washburn Hopkins who in his hypothesis says

that the composition of the text is divorced from auth0orial intent and from political and

economic context. Further Olivelle challenges the notion of Lariviere who expressed the

widely shared view: “I doubt whether such texts as the Naradasmriti or the Manusmriti were

composed by a single individual”. Olivelle’s argument is that “my point however is that the

composition of these texts did not happen as an unconscious and gradual accumulation at

different hands and at different times and places; these texts were authored by individuals

with clear authorial intent”. Olivelle even gives his reason that shall be dealt in the below

section, for his argument for the unitary authorship for Mdh is the ‘structure of the text’.

Here Manu is just an instrumental medium between the Brahman and the seers who came to

listen to him. He is just narrating them about what-ever he has been lectured by Brahman. So,

yes agentive force is present and it can’t be denied but it is neither not highly privileged.

More-over the concept of claiming authorship can only emerge along with the notion of

textuality.

Structure and style of composition: Narratology, Language, and Meter

Other than the presence of 12 chapters in the composition both Jones and Buhler do not make

any claims for structure. But Patrick Olivelle is head on bent to propose a model of structure

that is inherently present in the Mannusmriti.

For, Olivelle the style of ‘transitional verse’ is a matter of huge significance and he further

considers it as the ‘signature mark’ of Manu where this particular verse form marks the

conclusion of one subject and the beginning of another. Olivelle even gives many examples

of transitional verse but I would just quote the below that marks the end of source of law and

origin of the world and opens-up the new subject, laws of social classes.
“I have described to you above succinctly this source of the Law, as also

the origin of this world. Learn now the Laws of the social classes”.

Later Olivelle postulates four divisions in the text of Manusmriti by tracing the transitional

verse where the third division is the lengthiest division of the book, and they are,

1. Creation of the World

2. Sources of Dharma

3. The dharma of the four social classes

a) Dharmavidhi (rules relating to dharma)

i. Anapadi karmavidhih

ii. Apadi karmavidh

b) Prayascittavidhi (rules relating to penance)

4. Law of karma, rebirth and final liberation

Now, just on the basis ordered transitional change a pattern may be developed rather than a

corpus body of structure upon which the book is placed. It is also very much evident that the

act of Olivelle is in-turn an act influenced by reader agentive force, where the above

classification eases the plight of the reader.

Olivelle with regards to narration says, “Manu introduced two major innovations in

comparison to the previous literature of the dharma tradition. First he composed the entire

text in slokas. Second, he set his text within a narrative structure that consists of a dialogue

between an exalted being in the role of teacher and others desiring to learn from him”. The

text is composed in the slokas or the metrical verses and is in the Sanskrit language.

Aphoristic statements, maxims and axioms are also the constant recurring part of the text.
Then apart from the transitional, there are other verse forms like prefatory verses (William

Jones) which opens-up a new subject.

Title:

The title of this composition itself has been the subject of many controversies. Here all

the three writers largely differ from each other but there is a solid similar tone amongst all

these three writers.

William Jones names his translation as “Institutes of Hindu Law or The Ordinances of

Menu”, Buhler calls his translation as “The Law of Manu” and finally Olivelle titles his

composition as “Man's Code of Law; A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-

Dharmasastra”.

Here, the point to be noted is that the similar undertone that is same in all the three writers

and that similar tone is ‘Law’. Now this itself is pretty much evident as to how the

Manusmriti text has been merely received as a book of Law.

Further Olivelle mentions that the title Manusmriti itself is a later innovation where Manu

stands for Manusha (Human) or ‘to know’ and smriti literally means memory but it largely

means a composition. But yet the colophons of the manuscripts of the composition used to be

called as Dharmasastras or Manava-dharmasastras in metrical verses.

Chronology:

Georg Buhler dedicates his discussion in his introduction to the date of composition of the

text to such an extent the very 1st line of his introduction mentions about the difficulty and

historical problem. Buhler says, “...nor can we, so clouded are the old history and chronology

of India with fables and allegories, ascertain the precise age of the, when the work presented

to Publick, was actually composed...”

Both Buhler and Olivelle propose that the Manusmriti must have been composed between 2nd

and 3rd century B.C.

Manusmriti as a text of contradictions:

William Jones accuses Manusmriti with misleading and corrupt contradictions but unlike

Jones, Buhler and Olivelle enunciates their own observations to reason-out for the

presence of contradictions and internal-contradictions.

Buhler answers to the question of contradiction in two fold where he says that it is the

habit of Indian authors to place conflicting opinions and secondly that our smriti in any

case is a recast of an earlier sutra.

Then, Olivelle, who initially states some of the contradictions like a Sudra father of a

daughter accepting a bride-price as in the slokas 97 and 99. However Olivelle also

elaborates further to share his reasons for the internal-contradictions in the composition.

Here, Olivelle proposes two voices of Manu that are at times often contradictory in

nature. Those voices are ‘Moral’ and ‘Legal’ voices where Manu is entitled to speak on

dharma which isn’t just law but right form of living and so dharma might often contradict

with the prevailing laws.

Commentaries and Interpolations:

Buhler focuses on seven commentaries and William Jones also focuses on four

commentaries. And both Buhler and Jones agree that both Medatithi’s commentary is corrupt

and biased. Then the much widely appreciated commentator Kulluca is glorified by both the

writers.

Olivelle says that commentaries as prose joins, later at times end-up joining the metrical

verses of Manusmriti and so leading to an interpolation. Olivelle calls this process as work of
redactors where he says, “After it leaves the hands of the author, every text assumes an

independent life. This is especially true in the case of texts published before the advent of

printing”.

Buhler along-with Medatithi considers that the chapter one on the origin of the creation is a

later addition as they believe that no dharma-sutra begins with a description of its origin. To

which Olivelle answers along the lines of Jones as ordain the unquestionable superior

authority to the text.

The above mentioned key issues clearly demonstrate the concerns, approach and object of the

translators. It is indeed worth mentioning that this approach of the translators largely

resembles that of an anthropological or a historical work. But Manusmriti is a smriti that is

the amalgamation of ithihasa, kavya, dharma and so it transmigrates beyond any historical or

civilian or political compositions. Now, it is self evident that the writers saw the composition

of Manusmriti merely as a book of rules and so they negated the profound concepts of life of

action, cycle of life and death present in this book.

Misapprehensions and Infliction of Violence in the translation

Here as mentioned in the introductory part, I will discuss the distortion and infliction of

violence by the translators while translating Manusmriti. Every person tends to operate from

his/her own frame-work. Similarly when these writers couldn’t comprehend the dynamic

structure of the Indian society, they used their perspectives to observe and analyze. Now,

given the fact that culture is intrinsically singular, then, that singularity produces differences

and so there are often clashes between the cultures due to the nuanced differences. So, in

these situations differences leads to instability and so the dominant culture in-order to

negotiate the differences and to restore the stability enforces it’s views, norms, and ways on

the non-dominant culture. These situations do take place in academia where in translation for
example then one can see the fixation of meaning, misinterpretation, etc. So, an act of

violence is inflicted in the process of translation of Manusmriti where this act can be

categorized as an epistemological violence. Thus the misapprehensions are mentioned as

below.

 Attempts to emphasize one large canonical text. For example in Bengal there is

Mitakshara and Dayabagha; and then the dharmasastras of Yajnavalkya. There must

be possibilities that there are/were numerous Manusmritis depending upon the region,

jati and language.

 Ambiguous stand of privileging certain particular topics. This can be clearly viewed

in Olivelle’s translation and in the introduction of Buhler who privileges the chapters

on contracts, inheritances, property.

 Misleading the readers by terming Manu as a Brahmin and Aryans as the addressee of

the Manusmriti.

 By largely approaching the Manusmriti from the view point of a Historian and of an

Ethnographer, the deep philosophical discourses of the composition are undermined

and ignored.

Manusmriti as a colonial project

 Codifying the personal laws of Hindus: - to setup their legitimizing institutions like

Law and Government.

“Laws must be congenial to the disposition and habits, and to all their ancient usages and

established rules of conduct—must have the sanction of the actual revelation from heaven.
The legislative of Britain is in compliance with the above maxim. Leaving the Indians in

possession of their own laws (contracts and inheritances) -------> administration of justice

and government will be conformable”—William Jones.

Then even Olivelle refers to Lariviere who in-turn says that the act of East India Company to

obtain the personal law of Hindus, “a well intentioned misunderstanding”.

If we just plainly focus at the language of the text itself, one can easily make-out that it is not

a legal discourse as the language used is a dialectic narrating the events and directions which

reflects that the text is devoid of legal language which is characterized by facts, statistics,

conditional clauses…etc. Then, the very fact that the Manusmriti is one such composition

that is internally contradictory in nature. Here the internal contradictoriness and

inconsistencies means that Manu is not imposing certain mandatory dos’ on anyone but rather

mentions the consequences if one doesn’t follow. And moreover the internal contradictions

also slightly indicate at the change of opinion as the dialogue moves-on and also at the

compromising nature of Manu so as to lessen the hold on any topic.

 Theorizing fore front Hindus and Hinduism despite the absence of such notion in

Vedas and Manusmriti. Throughout nowhere in Manusmriti is there even once there is

a mention of the word Hindu. Halhed with his ‘Ordinances of gentoo’ and William

Jones with his title ‘Institutes of Hindu law’ are some of the writers who constructed

the grand narrative of Hindu code of life.

Thus the composition of Manusmriti was used primarily for their colonial enterprises.

Debunking the forced reading with renewed insights

 i. Differentiating Dhrama from duties and rights. Further Chap.2, verse-6 of Manusmriti

articulates dharma as ‘smrithis, shrutis, words of elders & learned, atmasanthusti are

the 4sources of dharma’.

ii. Focusing on the vast Heterogeneity through Jati culture where its complexity couldn’t

be comprehended by the colonizers. And so, Jati culture turned out to be a firewall

against cultural imperialism and total proselytization.

iii. As S.N.Balganghadara says, “human individuals are simultaneously born n to cultural

and natural environments. Both these environments are incredible store houses of

differences. E look up at these spaces as natural and cultural spaces”. So, we need to

look at the different learning that is provided by the cultural space that we are born in

to.

iv. And our class readings have generated new insights in Manusmriti by reflecting upon

Creation (shristi), Customs (Acharas) and Desires (Sankalpas).

v. Then chapters 2, 3, 11 and 12 give us the four stages of living that is mentioned as

below.

a. learning--brahmacharya, householder--grhasta, preparation-vanaprastha,

renunciation--sanyasa.

vi. Manusmriti gives us some noteworthy insights on Muti/Moksha where rendering

actions in existence in an undesiring way (not contributing only for yourself--not

calculated action)

vii. Then the text also propagates about the negotiation with existence where ‘ego’ which

is the shadow of the soul can be considered as the factor that induces individuating

entities to an individual. Here, desires are also such individuating entities that are
 manifested through objects. So, in-order to confront desire one has to deal with

his/her own ego where we ought not to get rid of ego but ought to negotiate with ego.

So, the above mentioned are some few insights gained through the different outlook of

Manusmriti.

Conclusion

A recent trend has been lurking out on the surface level where the ones colonized were and

are demanding reparation for the damage inflicted by the colonizers and even India witnessed

its MP Shashi Tharor debating in the Oxford Union demanding for an apology per say if not

the reparation. Now much what is spoken about these reparations is on the lines of economy

deeply connecting with socio-political institutions. But what has been undermined and

neglected is the untraceable violence or damages occurred on the part of colonies by the

colonizers. Now, with regards to India the untraceable violence is inflicted on that store-

house that promulgates the vast knowledge to the world as our histories, law, state-craft,

political theories, administrations and any other discipline of study is largely given by the

colonizers which in–turn has pinned down and distorted the native intellectuality and so,

India has not been able to produce and thus lack autonomous intellectuality.

Apart from the distortion and undermining the native knowledge that can be accumulated by

our unique culture and tradition with the super-imposition of the Western knowledge, the

academic institutions have taken course to the act of inflicting unseeable violence by

misinterpretations and wronged analysis where the inquiries of these institutions are biased

with the political motives and un-conscious influence of the Semantic religion where as S. N.

Balagangadharan says that every idea on earth is a deep Christianic thought. So, any

observations that are the influence of the Christian undertone may not be able to do a just

reading of texts concerning the Indian culture and customs as the latter is absent of the
knowledge constructing criterions like religion, universalism, superior god (who is

independent of the creation), nationhood, and sovereignty.

So, Manusmriti that can be considered as the discourse on ‘Life’ as it speaks about creation,

growth of an individual as a student, house-holder, and oldage. Patrick Olivelle refers to

Nietzsche who considered Manavadharmasastra as ‘life affirming representation of the Aryan

religion in contrast to the nay saying Buddhism’. Here, Nietzsche’s notion of Aryan religion

can be misleading but nevertheless life-affirmation is the theme of such composition. But

what amuses me is that on what grounds is Nietzsche is expressing these views? Is it on the

grounds of European religion that has always chalked out a code of living that has been read

and received as the ultimate words of god that makes him life as a matter of certain

commandments to be followed and lived upon?

In short the translation of Manusmriti by the Europeans have privileged the do’s and don’ts

rather than focusing on the vast heterogeneous jati culture and the actional mode of living.

So, as Frantz Fanon says, “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically

detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well”, we must realize the

propogandic reception and misinterpretation of our literature by the west and try to approach

such works with renewed insights, rather than getting succumbed to the colonial reading. And

so, ‘Epistemological violence’ has been committed by such translators and orientalists. Thus

therefore by developing fresh insights from the composition of Manusmriti itself, one can

significantly reduce the distortion of our culture created by the colonialism.

 Bibliography

Olivelle, Patrick. "Introduction." Man's Code of Law; A Critical Edition and Translation of

the Manava-Dharmasastra. Ed. Suman Olivelle. Oxford UP, 2005. 01-72. Text.

Buhler, Georg. "Introduction." The Laws Of Manu: The Sacred Books of The East, Part

Twenty-five. Ed. Max Muller. Vol. 25. Kessinger, 2004. 13-140. Print.

"Preface." Institutes of Hindu Law or The Ordinances of Menu. Trans. William Jones. Ed. Sir

Graves Haughton. 3rd ed. Wm. H. Allen, 1869. 18-37. Print.

Buhler, Georg. "Chapter 1 and 2." The Laws Of Manu: The Sacred Books Of The East Part

Twenty-five. Ed. Max Muller. Vol. 25. Kessinger, 2004. 140-210. Print.

Balagangadhara, S.N. "Notes towards the Study of Caste System in India." Academia.Edu. 23

Apr. 2002. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

https://www.academia.edu/5299040/NOTES_TOWARDS_THE_STUDY_OF_THE_

CASTE_SYSTEM

Rao, Dr. Venkat. "Liveable Learning." EFLU, Hyderabad. 6 Nov-6 Aug. 2015. Class

Lectures.

Chatterjee, Partha. "Whose Imagined Community." Sisphd. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

http://sisphd.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chatterjee Whose Imagined Community.pdf