Thread by @Aabhas24

1/n "India that is Bharat..."

Today what stands as the "Nation-State" is the root of great civilization of (or called) "Bharat".

If the places are mapped as in Mahabharata, it appeared as giant as this bordered by Persia & China.

2/n Any logical person would understand with such gigantic size came terrific diversity in form of geography, hence climate and hence Society.

What would be "right"in a region might be incorrect somewhere else.

Clothing & food can be a perfect eg to begin to understand nuances.

3/n Rightly so, it is observed by scholars that there were perhaps around a hundred Dharmaśāstras (History of the Dharmaśāstras Vol. 1, by PV Kane).

The constant thing among all was "Dharma" that bound the diversity of civilizations together without imposing own Smriti on other.

4/n But came the one book walah, priest & temple hating Protestant British.

Of course, they were alien to the concept of "Diversity." All they were a bit aware about was the Islamic Traditions for their age old fight "Crusades" & "Jihad."

5/n Of course, then the Muslims won't have had problem given the life being run by one doctrine which was of Sharia based on al-Hidaya and Fatawa-i Alamgiri commissioned by Aurangzeb.

There was an interesting point here though.

6/n The East India Company slipped into Bharat more like agents or ally of the dying "Timurid (distorted as Mughal) Empire."

The revenue was collected by the officers of the deputy nawab & the law administered was the current Islamic criminal code.

7/n There was no British code at all & language of administration was Persian.

You may or may not know, the Company was called "The Company Bahadur."

Read more here
britannica.com/place/India/Th…

8/n Then they sought profits for the shareholders through trade & maintain effective political control with minimal military engagement. They took a route of least resistance, relying upon co-opted local intermediaries that were "mostly" Muslims in various princely states.

9/n They exercised power without any interference to law practices as explained by the "local intermediaries."

I'm sure you know that who were "local intermediaries" now.

Read this document
jstor.org/stable/312295

10/n And then while for Muslims they had adopted Sharia based on al-Hidaya and Fatawa-i Alamgiri, rejecting the Indian diversity the most accessible book which seemed relevant for them was Manusmriti.

Note that Warren Hastings said as below on August 15, 1772:

11/n "That in all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the law of the Koran with respect to Mahometans, and those of the Shaster [Dharmaśāstra] with respect to Gentoos shall be invariably be adhered to."

12/n Perhaps the Brits where neither expecting the diversity, nor they were in access to all the code books.

And with that quest of Hastings, William Jones was able to translate Manusmriti in 1794 AD & named it "Institutes of Hindu Law or the Ordinances of Manu."

13/n According to the paper of "Lodo Rocher" : "Hindu Conception of Laws" repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewconten…

"British failed to recognise that Manusmriti was one of many competing Dharmasastra texts, it was not in use for centuries during the Islamic rule period of India."

14/n Lodo Rocher also observed below in same paper:

"The British colonial officials, however, mistook the Manusmriti as codes of law, failing to recognise that it was a commentary on morals and law and not a statement of positive law."

We get same info from the books below:

15/n a)Institutions and Ideologies, A SOAS South Asia Reader, by David Arnold, Peter Robb

b)Sharīʻat and ambiguity in South Asian Islam by Katherine P. Ewing . Pdf link library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/toc/z2010_1533…

16/n There is no doubt that different extractions of different Smritis were being adapted by Indians even after British tried to form the "Hindu Laws" based only on Manusmriti.

For this also we get very interesting attestation by a British document itself.

17/n The case of "Collector of Madhura Vs Mottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy (1869)", the Privy Council had observed that there was no uniformity in the observance of law by Hindus throughout the realm.

Though they observed only few variants, there must have been many more.

18/n According to the observation:
For the property law, Hindus are divided into two schools -

a) Dayabhaga school (Hindus in Bengal & Assam)

b) Mitakshara school (other Hindu communities of the Indian subcontinent)

19/n They observed further division in The Mitakshara school as below:

a)The Benaras school (cites the Viramitrodaya & Nirnayasindhu as authority and is observed by Hindus of United Provinces, Central Provinces & Odisha)

20/n b)The Mithila school (cites Vivadachintamani & Vivadaratnakara. Observed by Hindus of Mithila)

c)The Dravida school (cites Smritichandrika & Madhavacharya's commentary on Parashara smriti as authority. Observed by Hindus of Madras Presidency).

21/n d)The Maratha School (cites Vyavaharamayukha & Smritikaustubha. Observed by Hindus of Bombay Presidency)

e)The Punjab school(cites tradition & Nirnayasindhu as authority. Observed by Hindus of Punjab)

22/n Regarding adoption, Bengal & Dravida schools followed the Dattakachandrika of Devannabhatta while the Benaras & Mithila school follow the Dattakamimamsa of Nandapandita.

Read about the case here legitquest.com/case/the-colle…

23/n Then further the system became ironical as:

"The Manusmriti-derived laws for non-Muslim Indians were dissolved post-independence, but Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 continued to be the personal and family law for Indian Muslims."

24/n Recall, Churchill had said:
"During the Great War the Moslems of India confounded the hopes of their disloyalty entertained by the Germans and their Turkish ally and readily went to the colours, the Punjab alone furnished 180,000 Moslem recruits."

25/n Records state that British took very good care of their allies and instructions were even passed to out Brown Sahibs.

This gives us enough clue that why Sharia continued.

26/n Well, I'm not making any case that the law extracted only through "Manusmriti" were supposed to be continued as they did with Sharia but I'm making a case that how a clear "distinction" was made by the Brits among "Hindus" & "Muslims" & the legacy continued.

27/n What that period of 18th century did is that it created a global perception that "Manusmriti" is the authoritative book in call cases for Hindus.

Which certainly wasn't the case.

People of Bharat, ie Hindus followed different laws in different places & time.

28/n Definitely, you can't apply all ideas of Manusmriti everywhere & each time.

Our ancestors too knew it well and hence even till 19th century we had so many different schools of Hindu Law.

29/n When British did make "one book" as book of law for so diverse Hindu Society, problems were inevitable.

First they used it non-contextually all across the giant Bharat and then criticism too began.

30/n This criticism was not only about "Manusmriti" but of the "Hindu Society".

The boring monochromatic protestant British also looked at our "Pujaris" as "Priests" & "mandirs" as "temples/ churches".

For them them Brahmins became corrupt evil ones as they saw the priests.

31/n The Mandirs became house of "Corruption" as Luther had seen the "Churches."

All fell in sync & together it demonized our knowledge system (Brahmins and the Mandirs) completely.

32/n It has been a long history & unfortunately yet events like #ManusmritiDahanDivas are being organised for a single disaster done by likes of Hastings & Jones.

Not to forget, Dr Ambedkar did add fuel to fire too, given the colonial understanding he too had.

33/n But, can anyone on earth produce a single verse honoring women as much as #Manusmriti 3.56?

If not then why target it? The book of Quran contains so many anti-women verses, calls upon genocide of Kafirs openly. Yet?

https://twitter.com/Aabhas24/status/1474955760605958144?s=20