Manu, the great Indian sage, is arguably the oldest of lawmakers in the annals of human civilization. In the world of jurisprudence and sociology, the Institutes of Manu are more ancient than those of Justinian in Roman Law and are more far-reaching and pervasive and more ancient than the laws of Salon or Lycurgus. Yet, in recent years, the volatile caste centric political pandemonium has made Manu and his seminal work, the object of much hatred, ridicule and even violence. While almost all students of Indian History, professional and amateur are aware of the six abusive verses it contains, few have gone through it critically, to appreciate its uncompromising rational stand, the underlying jurisprudence, his brilliant insight into dharma, the collective maintenance of law, and perhaps most important the foundation of justice which to Manu was not based on vengeance or retribution. Unfortunately, the defensive mindset of Indian Historians, even in those with an uncompromising regard for objectivity like the eminent R C Majumdar, caused several unfortunate statements in this regard. The latter could see nothing good in the Manu Smriti, except a few honeyed verses with regard to women [Refer, Ancient India by R C Majumdar] In case of Marxist and dalit historians, one could not expect any semblance of objectivity, to them the MS is nothing more than a brahmanical construct for subjugating the shudras. Indeed, Manu serves as their favourite whipping boy of Indian history

Manu, the great Indian sage, is arguably the oldest of lawmakers in the annals of human civilization. In the world of jurisprudence and sociology, the Institutes of Manu are more ancient than those of Justinian in Roman Law and are more far-reaching and pervasive and more ancient than the laws of Salon or Lycurgus. Yet, in recent years, the volatile caste centric political pandemonium has made Manu and his seminal work, the object of much hatred, ridicule and even violence. While almost all students of Indian History, professional and amateur are aware of the six abusive verses it contains, few have gone through it critically, to appreciate its uncompromising rational stand, the underlying jurisprudence, his brilliant insight into dharma, the collective maintenance of law, and perhaps most important the foundation of justice which to Manu was not based on vengeance or retribution. Unfortunately, the defensive mindset of Indian Historians, even in those with an uncompromising regard for objectivity like the eminent R C Majumdar, caused several unfortunate statements in this regard. The latter could see nothing good in the Manu Smriti, except a few honeyed verses with regard to women [Refer, Ancient India by R C Majumdar] In case of Marxist and dalit historians, one could not expect any semblance of objectivity, to them the MS is nothing more than a brahmanical construct for subjugating the shudras. Indeed, Manu serves as their favourite whipping boy of Indian history

Such misconceptions have prevailed in the modern Indian psyche, consummating in the absolute rejection of the possible merits this scripture carried in its wake, and how it made a radical departure from the eye for an eye laws known to then contemporary world, but also on the unfailing conscientiousness with which justice was to be upheld in his eyes. The aim of my article is not to explain away the unpalatable elements of the MS, but only to reappraise the breakthroughs in ancient law, sociology and jurisprudence it achieved. To censure the ancient text, by juxtaposing it with modern penal law would be entirely anachronistic. In the words of Will Durant ?the historian?s folly is to judge the past from the yardstick of the present? When ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome have been bestowed a sympathetic gaze by European historians, by putting to shade their obnoxious and morally reprehensible sides, why has not the Indian scriptures especially the MS been accorded similar scholarly sensitivity, concern and understanding!

THE ORIGINS

Sir William Jones, has noticed that ?the dialect of Manu is observed in many passages to resemble that of the Vedas, particularly in its departure from the more modern grammatical forms.? Manu could well have been extant in the period varying from 1580 to 800 B.C. Yaska of Nirukta [1000-700 B.C] refers to Manu Svayambhuva on the right of both sons and daughters to inheritance. The original Manu laws called the Manava Dharma Shastra, comprised a hundred thousand verses, in a thousand chapters, but for the benefit of mankind they were abridged by Narada, Sumati and Bhrigu successively to its present form, which are referred to as the institutes of Manu or more popularly, the Manu Smriti in its extant form. While Buhler dates it to 5^th century B.C, Max Muller thought it to be around 2^nd century B.C. Prof. Kane, dates it approximately around 3^rd century B.C. However, in 1.25, the creation of only 3 vedas is mentioned. What is conspicuous is the absence of the fourth veda, the Atharwa Veda composed by Angiras.* This could well explain the hoary antiquity of even the extant Manu Smriti, tentatively between 1000-800 B.C

• V Raghavan writes, the MS mentions all four Vedas, but I did not come across any verse referring to the Atharwa Veda.

THE CONTENTS

The Manu Smriti as it exists now, runs into 12 chapters and 2694 couplets

Manu takes the foremost place among all other smriti writers as exemplified by Brhadpati ?Manu takes the foremost places, because his work is based on the teaching of the Vedas, and any Smriti text which is opposed to Manu is not to be valued?

SOURCES OF LAWS

Manu lays down in his code, that there are four sources of laws?The first being the Vedas, the immanent and eternal laws of the universe. The second being Smriti, which actually deal with the making of the laws. All smritis must uphold the spirit of Sruti, because whenever Sruti and Smriti contradict, the former is held authoritative and the latter discarded. Manu himself says, by Sruti is known the Vedas, and by Smriti is known the dharmasastras. The third is approved conduct, which must be moral i.e. sistachara and sadachara

The fourth source of law according to Manu is ?what is agreeable to one?s soul or good conscience? Thus, Manu anticipates conscience and equity as a source of law. [MS 4:12]

DHARMA AS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL LAW

Manu?s greatest contribution is his consideration of law as dharma. Dharma has often been misinterpreted as religion, but dharma etymologically means that which upholds or that which sustains. Dharma, the adherence to righteousness is the very foundation of a just and sustainable society.  Manu traces an evolutionary trajectory from inanimate through vegetative, animate to human - in increasing order of level of consciousness. Since humans have free will, they may choose not to adhere to dharma and then, the society will start regressing (ie, the reverse of evolution) and erring members will be pushed down this evolutionary scale to go through the whole struggle once again. This is a significant extrapolation to concepts of karma and rebirth. Thus, in upholding dharma, man evolves towards perfection, in demeaning dharma; humanity sinks to a sordid destruction.

A. Dharma is in protecting the weaker sections of society

While righteousness is undisputedly sine qua non at the individual / personal level, in one stroke the responsibility for policing and maintaining the rule of law - by implication, protecting the weak - has been placed on society collectively; it becomes the duty of the ruling dispensation to ensure this. To give a singular instance, Manu puts the onus of protecting the rights, property and safety of widowed, diseased and barren women on the king himself. [MS 7.28-9] He even edicts the king, to punish like thieves, the relatives who attempt to usurp the property of such women.

B. Dharma does not distinguish between the strong and the weak. Dharma being truth cannot be subservient to any man, howsoever powerful he might be, even if he is the king.

C. The defendant is considered Innocent until proven guilty

The judicial procedure prescribed in the MS is based on the principle that it is still acceptable if the guilty go unpunished, but not if even one innocent person is wrongly sentenced. That would make it the first express statement of an absolutely fundamental principle of law and human rights, and I believe it can be taken to include the presumption of innocence of the accused (unless guilt is conclusively established) and an implicit guarantee of the right against self-incrimination.

In other words, justice is not a vehicle of vengeance or retribution, and a society must necessarily adhere to dharma, ie the natural order for the very fact of its existence.

That Manu goes to great lengths to ensure this is suggested by the fact that S  Radhakrishnan, in his Indian Philosophy, mentions that Manu prescribes the Aanveekshiki method of positivist inquiry for judicial matters, even as he condemns those who employ it for philosophical / metaphysical inquiry (intuition is taken as superior here) - a clear and emphatic secularisation of judicial procedure.

E. Rights are meaningless in the absence of qualifications [adhikara]: The modern theory of rights, irrespective of adhikara is something alien to Manu?s attitude towards life.

F. Manu strives to attain a dharmic society. In dharma is divinity. Dharma is thus a positive concept, for it strives to attain self-realization. It gives humanity, reasons for striving and incessantly aspiring for the highest goal of moksha. Thus Manu states ?One should not allow one?s spirit to be frustrated by earlier failures; one should not disregard oneself;; till death one should strive for prosperity and should never consider it difficult to attain? [MS 4.137]

G. Dharma is satya but dharma is also ahimsa. For enforcing dharma, one need not use violence and cause trouble to human beings but instead use powers of persuasion of sweet and refined words in teaching dharma. Yet, one should never be complaisant while dealing with truth. [MS 4.138, 4.139]

In essence, Manu dismisses any pessimism and despondency from his scheme. It is perhaps this aspect that enthused, the great philosopher, NIETZSCHE to exclaim about Manu Smriti; ?It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living?