What is Manu smriti? Is it relevant today?

 

In recent times, we often see debates on TV and social media about the Manusmriti. Some people are burning it, some are defending it, and many of us are just confused.

To be honest, most of us have never even seen this book. We don't know what is written inside it. We only get to know about it through these controversies and angry debates. Because of this, we often wonder—is it a holy book? Should we follow it? Or should we reject it?

To understand this properly, we first need to clear our basics about Hindu scriptures. What is authority and what is not.

Sruti vs. Smriti

In Sanatana Dharma, our scriptures are divided into two main categories: Sruti and Smriti.

1. Sruti ("That which is heard"): These are the Vedas and Upanishads. They contain eternal truths about the soul (Atman), God, and the cosmic order. These truths never change. They are like the laws of gravity—true yesterday, true today, and true tomorrow.

2. Smriti ("That which is remembered"): These are books on social codes, laws, and customs. The Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Parashara Smriti fall in this category.

The Golden Rule: Sruti is permanent. Smriti is temporary and changes with time.

What is Manusmriti?

Thousands of years ago, society needed rules to function. Just like we have a Constitution and Indian Penal Code today, the ancients had Dharma Shastras.

The Manusmriti (Laws of Manu) was written (likely between 200 BCE and 200 CE) to organize society during a chaotic time. It laid down rules for:

• Administration: How a King should rule.

• Justice: How to punish thieves and criminals.

• Daily Life: Duties of a student, a householder, and a hermit.

The Good Part:

We must appreciate that these texts brought discipline. They defined Dharma (duty) clearly. They emphasized that a human being’s life should be disciplined, from education (Brahmacharya) to retirement (Vanaprastha). Without such social norms, there would be anarchy.

Why the Controversy?

If it was just a law book, why is it controversial now? To understand the anger and debate, we need to realize there are two distinct reasons behind the controversy:

1. The Text is Genuinely Outdated:

First, we must be honest. Parts of the text are simply wrong for today's world. It contains rigid rules about Caste (Varna) and Women that are unacceptable now.

It prescribes severe punishments for Shudras (lower castes) while being lenient towards Brahmins for the same crimes. It states that women should never be independent (Na stri svatantryam arhati). In a modern democracy, these ideas are unjust. This is valid criticism.

2. The Context is Misunderstood or Twisted:

The second reason is that people often misunderstand the text. Sometimes this is due to ignorance, and sometimes it is done purposefully to show the religion in a bad light. They quote lines without understanding the time, place, or deeper meaning.

Let’s look at this second point in more detail.

The 'Out of Context' Problem

Before we judge, we must understand that a lot of misunderstanding happens when people pick one verse out of context and ignore the rest.

Example: Is Caste by Birth or Worth?

Today, many critics quote Manusmriti to say Hinduism supports discrimination by birth. But they often miss the deeper point found in our scriptures.

Originally, Varna (Caste) was based on Guna (Quality) and Karma (Action), not purely by birth. There are references suggesting that a person becomes a 'Brahmin' by their knowledge and conduct, not just because of their father.

• Manusmriti 10.65:

  Śūdro brāhmaṇatāmeti brāhmaṇaścaiti śūdratām

  Translation: "A Shudra attains the rank of a Brahmin, and a Brahmin sinks to the rank of a Shudra."

  This explicitly suggests that originally, one's status could rise or fall based on their merit and conduct, not just their birth.

Over thousands of years, society corrupted this system and made it a rigid "birth-right." When people attack the text today, they often attack this corrupted version without acknowledging that the original intent was about social division of labor, not hatred.

Having said that, it doesnt mean text is flawless. There are things up for change.

What about places where it is wrong ? But Wait... Our Scriptures Actually Ask for Change!

This is the most important point that many Hindus do not know due to ignorance. Sanatana Dharma is the only religion that has a built-in "Update Button".

Our Rishis knew that society changes. A rule that worked for a King in 200 BCE cannot work for a Democracy in 2025.

Proof from the Scriptures:

1. Different Times, Different Laws:

   The Parashara Smriti (1.24) clearly states:

   Kṛte tu mānavā dharmāstretāyāṃ gautamāḥ smṛtāḥ |

   Dvāpare śaṅkhalikhitāḥ kalau pārāśarāḥ smṛtāḥ ||

   Translation: "The laws of Manu were for the Satya Yuga (or Krita age); the laws of Gautama for the Treta Yuga; Shankha and Likhita for Dvapara; and for the Kali Yuga (our current time), the laws of Parashara are relevant."

   This verse proves that Manusmriti itself is outdated according to our own tradition!

2. Reject What is Hateful:

   Even the Manusmriti (Verse 4.176) gives us permission to reject it:

   Parityajed arthakāmau... dharmam chapyasukhodarkam lokavikrushtam eva ca

   Translation: "One should reject wealth and desire if they violate Dharma. But one should also reject a Dharma (rule/custom) if it causes suffering in the future or is hateful to the people."

So, if a social rule is causing pain or is rejected by society (like untouchability or gender discrimination), the scripture itself says: Drop it.

What Did Swami Vivekananda Say?

Many of us look up to Swami Vivekananda as a modern Rishi. He was very clear about this topic. He warned us not to confuse "Religion" (spirituality) with "Social Laws" (Smriti).

Here is what the great Swami told us:

1. Smritis Must Change: Swamiji said that while the Vedas are eternal, the Smritis are not. They are just local customs for a specific time. He said, "The Smritis must change with the time. A rule that was good for the Vedic age might be bad for today."

2. Don't Be a Slave to Old Customs: He criticized us for blindly following dead customs. He pointed out that the Rishis who wrote these laws were wise men of their time, but if they came back today, they would laugh at us for trying to apply their old rules to modern India.

3. Need for a New Smriti: Vivekananda believed that for the modern age, we need a new Smriti—a new set of social rules that treats everyone with dignity, irrespective of caste or gender. He believed that the caste rigidities in books like Manusmriti were "crystallized customs," not the essence of Sanatana Dharma.

The Problem of Ignorance

The main issue today is ignorance.

• We don't read: Many Hindus think everything in Sanskrit is "Holy" and must be defended. They try to defend parts of Manusmriti that are clearly outdated.

• Others exploit this: People from other religions or political groups pick up these specific verses (like the punishments for Shudras) and say, "Look, this is your religion."

Because we don't know the difference between Sruti (Eternal) and Smriti (Changeable), we get defensive and confused. We fail to tell them, "Hey, that is an old law book, not our eternal spiritual truth."

Conclusion

Is Manusmriti relevant now?

• Legally: No. We follow the Constitution of India.

• Spiritually: The core values of truth and discipline are good, but the social rules are expired.

We need to maintain the sanity of Sanatana Dharma by accepting change. Our religion is like a flowing river, not a stagnant pond. It has survived for thousands of years because it adapts.

Let us hold on to the Vedas (spiritual wisdom) and be ready to write new Smritis (social codes) for the modern world. Let's not let ignorance become a weapon for others to bring down our Dharma.

Its time to have authority who comes up with new Smriti or modify existing one and tell these are the rules 

Know your Dharma. Update your Understanding.