Rehan Khan
Delhi University’s Faculty of Law recently proposed incorporating Manusmriti (100 AD) into the undergraduate law syllabus as a distinct subject. This move sparked widespread criticism, leading the University to retract the proposal. The backlash was anticipated, given Manusmriti‘s controversial history, especially regarding caste and gender biases. Notably, opposition to Manusmriti has long been a symbol of the struggle for Dalit dignity, highlighted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s burning of the text in 1927, a pivotal moment in the fight against caste discrimination.
The decision to introduce Manusmriti was perceived as an attempt to revive casteist ideologies, marginalizing Dalit identities. Critics argued that merely canceling the proposal does not address the underlying issues, stressing the need for a more thoughtful approach to such sensitive matters.
Historical texts often play a significant role in legal studies, providing context and understanding of the laws that have shaped societies. In India, ancient legal texts like Miatakshara by Vijnaneshwara continue to influence modern legal practices, particularly in personal laws. For instance, Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates the performance of the Saptapadi rite for a marriage to be legally binding, reflecting the deep-rooted connections between ancient rituals and contemporary law. The importance of adhering to these ceremonies was emphasized in the recent judgment of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar (2024), where the non-performance of such rites rendered the marriage void.
While the inclusion of historical texts in legal education is common, the addition of Manusmriti—a text known for both shaping Hindu society and perpetuating caste-based discrimination—raises concerns. Manusmriti is a comprehensive code with thousands of verses, some of which offer philosophical insights, such as the advice against selfishness in verse 2.2 and the protection of dharma in verse 8.15. However, many verses promote caste and gender biases, such as the inferior status of lower castes (verse 1.31), the servile status assigned to lower castes (verse 1.91), and the denial of agency to women (verses 5.145/146).
The controversy surrounding Manusmriti highlights the dangers of introducing such a text into the law syllabus, especially in a polarized political environment. The apprehension that this move could reinforce caste-based divisions in classrooms is legitimate. Legal education is meant to uphold ethical values and support the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The proposal to include Manusmriti in the syllabus seems to prioritize political agendas over academic integrity, undermining the true purpose of legal education.
In the words of Gandhi, “A lawyer is the salt of the nation,” reminding us that legal education should never come at the cost of dignity and equality.