The idea that Manu’s code dominated the lives of Indians was planted by the British who on seeing the excellent grass-root level governance at that time, believed that a law book must exist. Their search for that book ended in Manu smruti. Details in jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2012/04/were-b…
William Jones believed that Manu’s code was practiced in India until then. But for him, Manu's code would not have become widely known as it is today.
2 facts that British failed to realise: Code of Law changes according to Yugas and Manu Neeti is not the Law book of current Yuga. Manu Smruti was not taught in any school or college in India at the time British came. How can a book not studied become a law book for the country?
Anti-Hindu Tamil poraless quote Manu smruti to criticise Hinduism for the ills of the society. If it is justified, then Tholkappiyam also stands to be criticised. It propagates the 4 varnas and adds 3 more. It gives many rules of the society that are not found in Manu neeti.
As far as Tamil people were concerned the only Manu neeti they knew was that of a Chola king killing his son as a punishment for accidentally killing a calf. The rationale was that even a king can’t be spared if he caused harm to any life.
The higher that one is in the ladder of responsibility, the severe the punishment is. This is forgotten in the din caused by Poralees.
The British thought Manu neeti was imposed by Brahmins on the native tribes by keeping themselves in the top level. They didn't consider Brahmins as Aryans because they weren't like 'them'- as the British considered themselves and other Europeans as the original stock of Aryans. 
The British knew very well the position of Brahmins in every village. The Brahmins were either found in temples worshiping deities or giving tips on the time for agricultural operations. They never held the position of the Village Chief & never powerful to deliver Justice.
"The History of British India" (1817) by James Mill says that the village level administration headed by Potail (not a Brahmin) was working well for ages in India. In that set up Brahmins were working as priests, teachers and astrologers that British called ‘calendar Brahmins’.
Colonial records show that Brahmins did not enjoy power. They were part of the society like anybody else and they didn't occupy the position to dictate terms or create prejudice against any community. But the British continued to have an obsession with the Brahmins.
They observed and recorded every habit of Brahmins but used those details to deride them. Perhaps they compared themselves, 'the inhabitants of the Aryan homeland' with the Brahmins of India and deduced that the Brahmins were in no way superior to them.
They recorded the accurate head count of the Brahmins in the census reports whereas scores of others were just mentioned without any detail.
Like Brahmins, another obsession of the British was the ‘Shudras’. To their dismay they could not point out any one group as “shudra’ as no one claimed themselves as Shudras. This was so until close to their departure from our country. Census report of 1901 says the following.
Even if no one is called as a Shudra, the British could not stop wondering how that could be! The result was that they created identities for many people who already had a traditional identity – not as castes – but based on lineage or some historical reasons.
The kind of bungling that British did in grouping the people into castes resulted loss of old memories which were continuing as valuable oral and historical records from time immemorial and creation of division among the people, now exploited by anti-Hindu poralees of Tamilnadu.
For more details, read my article jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2012/04/were-b…
The links to colonial records and Indian language researches given in my article (above) no longer exist in the web. They are in the custody of Uni of Chicago. Shouldn't they be with Indian Govt? At least the colonial census records must be brought to India.
