I noticed a lot of people trolling @vivekagnihotri about Manusmriti over this tweet. It is interesting that people have chosen to highlight the exact parts which they think is useful to bash Hindus. Wonder if they have actually read the whole book. I have.
@vivekagnihotri Here are a few interesting points which the Manusmriti bashers may want to consider. Any book should be considered in its entirety. The most important thing about Manusmriti is that Manu himself points out that the rules are NOT immutable. Here.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti itself says that Vedas can be taught to everyone. Birth is no restriction. See verses 2:109-115.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti's suggestions for handling of witnesses, who can be a witness, who cannot, conflict of interest, interpretation of contracts and the duties of judges to behave impartially are superb. See early part of chapter 8.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti specifically enjoins the protection of women. And, BTW, it also implicitly rejects Sati. Here is what it says about the protection of women and king's duties regarding them.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti expressly enjoins the protection of water bodies. Our governments would do well to take a few lines from Manusmriti to protect water bodies from pollution and encroachment.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti expressly permits freedom of speech, especially when that freedom of speech is against the king. Here is what Manusmriti says.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti disdains death penalty, and opines against its use. Here is the verse.
@vivekagnihotri Manusmriti also enjoins the probity of funds collected for charitable works. It is one of the most comprehensive set of rules for generous works. Money collected for one charitable purpose cannot be used for other works. See also chapter 8.
@vivekagnihotri I can go on in this fashion for what is useful in Manusmriti, but let me stop and address the critics. Are there verses that are derogatory to shudras, disdainful of the independence of women and promoting child marriage? Yes.
@vivekagnihotri But Manu himself asked people to examine his teachings with `the eyes of knowledge' acknowledging that his teachings were for his time and place. He himself acknowledged that rules change over places and over time. In fact, this is probably the greatest of his achievements!
@vivekagnihotri Secondly, Manusmriti, like all other Indic texts, does not contain a rights based language. It contains a duty based narrative. FoE, for instance, is not listed as the right of the commoner to speak. It is the duty of the king/magistrate to ensure that he is not silenced.
@vivekagnihotri This is where the bulk of the bias against shudras is coming from. Disrupting authority was frowned upon in Manusmriti. What those sophomorically quoting verses biased against shudras overlook is that the punishment for kings/brahmins who fail their duty is exceptionally harsh.
@vivekagnihotri Here, for instance, is what is done to a Brahmana who drinks alcohol.
@vivekagnihotri Here, for instance, is what was done to the Brahmana who bedded the wife of his teacher.
@vivekagnihotri But a shudra was not punished for drinking, and his punishment for adultery was lighter. The idea being that, a Brahmana should uphold societal rules, live a model and very frugal life [a Brahmana was not allowed to hoard up money] and his fall was unacceptable. Same for kings.
