Jatin Mathur
Recently Delhi University received proposal from the Faculty of Law suggesting to include readings from Manusmriti with The Manubhasya of Medhatithi by Ganganath Jha and commentary of Manusmriti – Smritichandrika by T Kristnasawmi Iyer. The two suggested texts and the amendment have been rejected by the University. The revisions pertained to the courses, Jurisprudence I and II in semester 1. However it invoked opposition from students and teachers. In this article I have tried to present an alternative to the general view regarding introduction of ‘Manusmriti’ as suggestive reading.
Ashutosh S Boddh (law student and President of ASA-DU) pointed out that “The proposed inclusion of the Manusmriti in the jurisprudence course aims to trace the origins of law in India. However, the concern lies in its presentation as a “text” rather than a reading that includes critical scholarly perspectives. This approach leaves room for biased interpretations by students and professors”.
While protesting the move, the Social Democratic Teachers Front had written to the V-C on Wednesday stating, “… it has come to our knowledge that Manusmriti has been recommended to students as ‘suggested readings’ which is highly objectionable as this text is adverse to the progress and education of women and marginalized communities… Introduction of any section or part of Manusmriti is against the basic structure of our Constitution and principles of Indian Constitution.”
However such arguments opposing inclusion of Manusmriti can be challenged based upon the views that University is the space which must propagate critical engagement and resistance to popular ideologies and scriptures. Questions can be asked that, How can one actually critique without actually engaging with the text? Should we teach our students to believe or oppose texts without actually engaging with the text? Is it not an appropriate text to contextualize varna hierarchy and caste oppression? Does avoiding critical academic engagement with ‘Manusmriti’ foster anti-caste values?
Moreover it’s important to teach law students about the historical relationship of marginalization with the religious philosophy and social laws. It must be taught to expose how law treated people differently based upon their varna in ancient cultures. It can further teach students about the patriarchy which proposed different laws for women and men. How were the Brahmins (priestly class) protected and patronized by books written by themselves. Moreover it becomes important for students to learn about the subordination of women and their inferior position under ancient laws which governed social conduct.
Saurabh Rai (former law student at DU and Advocate) stated “Jurisprudence is knowledge of law, it’s inadequate if students are prevented from critically engaging with ‘Manusmriti’ which was first codified laws and it defined punishment for various varnas, it is actually a reflection of archaic laws therefore to understand the historical and social context of laws Introduction of ‘Manusmriti’ can be considered, though in original form than mere interpretations to justify text”.
It was responsible for marginalization and exploitation of various castes and women for ages and now we have laws against caste and gender inequality. In order to explain and contextualize affirmative action policies, historical and social marginalization of women, lower castes and Untouchables that was religiously and socio-legally sanctioned by Manusmriti has to be taught.
However it is important to understand the inclusion in its political context. This inclusion does not intend to foster critical engagement with the text rather it seems more of an agenda. It can be concluded from the fact that only commentaries and interpretations on two chapter were to be taught instead of entire original ancient text which would have limited critical engagement moreover it depends upon professors will, I remember while discussing about the text in ‘Sociology of religion’ class my professor asked me not to do any heated debate when I reflected my critical views on Manusmriti.
One can actually question the commitment of university administration to anti-caste scholarship as earlier two Dalit authors – Bama and Sukirtharini – were arbitrarily removed. Then, Mahasweta Devi’s ‘Draupadi’ – a story about a tribal woman was also removed from syllabus of English Department. hence I suggest to consider inclusion of original text but with the proper critical engagement over a political agenda.
~~~
Jatin Mathur, a Social Anthropologist and Sociology Master’s student at Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi.
