2

Manu: Social Laws

Nalini Sinha

Manu, the author of Manusmriti, is the first teacher, according to legends, to reveal the essence of humanity to mankind and was the first legislator to prescribe norms of social life and practices, later incorporated in various Dharmashastras and Samhitas, premised on a moral view of history. Manusmriti is a pivotal text, which was presumably compiled, especially the passages on the caste system, only during the early centuries CE.1 It encompasses pragmatic visualization as well as idealization of life or how life should be lived. It is primarily concerned with dharma, which includes but also transcends the Western concepts of religion, duty, law, right, justice, practice and principle. It gives us a bird’s eye view of the prevalent religious and temporal practices of the time.

It is also worth mentioning here that the text in question is probably the work of not one person, rather of several authors. Yet, we attribute it to someone named Manu, and call it Manu’s Laws, quite different from say Gautama’s Laws or Yajnavalkya’s Laws. Manu is often regarded as the mythological ancestor of the human race, the Indian version of Adam.

The interpretation of Manusmriti or its English equivalent the Laws of Manu is fraught with enormous difficulties because of the fitting shlokas in which the entire text is composed. Today, these writings together are attributed to Manu and consist of 2685 verses. It covers the entire gamut of human life, from social obligations and duties of the various varnas and individuals in different stages of life to Hindu philosophy. A cursory glance of the text reveals the richness and diversities of the social, political, economic, religious, ethical and aesthetic dimensions of life. It is a microcosm of the Hindu and Indic civilization of the time.

The title of the work poses a problem for the readers, because the text is known by two different names, Manusmriti and Manavdharmashastra. The title Manusmriti does not have the term dharma. Moreover, smriti is in contrast with shruti, which means ‘revelation’. The term shastra connotes laws as well as teachings, treatises or text. In fact, the book may be regarded as a synthesis of philosophy, religion and law focusing on a very wide yet complex worldview.

Western scholars have examined the text from different perspectives. Manu’s was among the first of all Sanskrit works to be translated into various European languages. Sir William Jones was the first to translate the text into English, and this was subsequently translated into various European languages like German, French, Portuguese and Russian. J. Duncan M. Derett calls the book ‘India’s greatest achievement in the field of jurisprudence’.2 Nietzsche was full of praise for Manu’s writings and used it as a stick with which to beat Christianity, which he characterizes as ‘the victory of Chandala values …’3

The Laws of Manu were composed by members of a particular social class or varna known as Brahmins or priests. There is an impression that the text was created by priests for their exclusive use. It must be remembered that the term priest at that time was used in a wider connotative sense. A priest was held to be the ‘paradigmatic human being’,4 a complete and perfect example of mankind, a kind of ideal. The text is a depiction of our complex cosmic system, embedded in a conceptual structure that encompasses the universe as a whole. In the process the text reflects the thoughts and ideas of ancient India.

Manu also dwelt at length on the nature of social life or the relations between the four social classes or varnas, viz., priests (Brahmins), rulers and warriors (Kshatriyas), commoners (Vaishyas) and servants (Shudras).

It should also be understood that many of the ideas expressed in the Manusmriti were not original and had already been articulated in the Vedic texts. Manu captured the existing social practices and prevalent ideas and codified them in the text. This depiction of the natural and social order was preserved in later Indian thought. In the Vedas, the culinary metaphor has been used to illustrate the natural and social world. Nature in the Vedas was regarded as a hierarchically ordered set of mandatas (circles), and the social world, no less than the natural one, is one of the rulers and the ruled, consumers and the consumed, exploiters and the exploited, the strong and the weak. The text declares that ‘those that do not move are the food of those that move’. Eating and killing were regarded as two sides of the same coin. The Hindu metaphor of the Law of Fishes, the Matsyanyaya, whereby the bigger fish eat the smaller ones in an anarchic universe, is a continuation of Vedic assumptions. Manu only reiterated Vedic presuppositions. Meat was regarded as the best kind of food. This had a deeper significance as it suggested that the stronger naturally dominates and engulfs the timid and has a higher place in the social chain. Vegetarianism and non-violence came only later, as revisionist ideas postulating a critique of the older vision of the natural order of things. Buddhism and Jainism challenged these fundamental assumptions of the Vedas.

The text of Manu is pivotal in the priestly response to the crisis confronting traditional Aryan culture. It is indeed a valuable historical document that successfully synthesized and created a cultural paradigm. The text can, in this context, be seen as a complement to the Bhaga-vad Gita and to the great epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, whose objectives were similar. It attempted to extend its reach to all people as well as situations — the king as well as the ritual priest, the untouchable as well as the priest, the householder as well as the sanyasi, and women as well as men.

Rajdharma

The seventh chapter of Manusmriti dwells at length on various aspects of rajdharma or statecraft. The concept of rajdharma has always been one of fundamental importance and has provoked much deliberation and discussion in the Dharmashastras. Who should be a king? How is he to be educated? What is the type of education to be imparted to a king? How can a king be elected? What are his duties in his personal life? What should be his duty in public life? How is the preservation and integration of the social order to be achieved? These were some of the core questions it sought to address. Besides these, a number of other things form part of the rajdharma of the ancient Indic polity. Though all aspects of statecraft had been debated upon earlier, Manu was the first to systematize the science of government and administration.

Manu was an ardent supporter of the ‘divine right theory’ of the origin of state, which considered the state to be a creation of God. K. P. Jayaswal holds the view that the theory of the divinity of the king was advanced by Manusmriti to support the Brahmin empire of Pusyamitra, and to counteract the Buddhist theory of the origin of the state by contract.5 God, as the creator of the entire cosmic order, is responsible for the welfare of the people as well as the harmonious functioning of the whole order. With this idea in mind, he created the institution of kingship and the king was His representative on earth. This has been elaborated even in the Vedas and Upanishads. Manusmriti also subscribes to the idea that king is a creation of God.6

Since the king was the most important unit of the entire state administration, Manu emphasizes the intellectual and moral qualifications of the ruler or the king. He is asked to follow the advice of the Brahmins who are learned in Vedas, and are in a position to control their senses. The Arthasastra too extols the virtues of a king’s self-control so that he can control his subjects better.

Manu’s king was an ideal man, well educated, scholarly, efficient and a person of high morals and intellect. He was not a slave to his sexual desires and instincts and, at the same time, free from anger and greed. He treated all his subjects equally. Manu compares the personality of this ideal king to the ocean, deep and turbulent from within, hiding both pearl and filth, but calm on the surface.7 Manu also prescribes certain virtues a king had to possess. The king had to be free from corruption but true to dharma, artha, kama and moksha, the four pillars of satvik life. Since he is the chief executive of the state, he should also possess qualities like sama, dama, danda and bheda. He also had to be modest, polite, courteous, and firm and determined.

The terms Arthashastra and dandaniti are applied to the science of government from two different perspectives. Kamasutra defines the Arthasastra as education, lands, gold, cattle, domestic utensils and the augmenting of what is acquired. Where it concerns the government of the people and punishment of offenders, it is called dandaniti. Almost all authorities conform to the opinion that a state or rajya is constituted of seven elements (prakriti)8. It is therefore called the concept of Saptanga Rajya, or seven-element state. These seven prakritis are:

1. Swami (ruler or sovereign)
2. Amatya (minister)
3. Janapada or rashtra (the territory of the state and its people)
4. Durga (fort, fortified city or capital)
5. Kosa (accumulated wealth in the ruler’s treasury),
6. Danda (army) and
7. Mitra (friends or allies of the rajya).

The word prakriti has wide-ranging connotations and could mean elements, attributes or constituents of a state. The Sukranitisara compares the saptanga rajya with the human body, i.e., it reflects the organic theory of the origin of state.9 The king is the head, the ministers its eyes, its allies the ears, the mouth signifies the treasury, the army its mind and, lastly, the capital and rastra as its hands and feet. All the seven prakritis are complementary to others and if even one is defective, the state cannot function well. It is also indicative of the fact that Manu, like the author of the Mahabharata, believed in the existence of an organic unity among the various elements of the rajya, where all elements work harmoniously towards one ideal or goal. Manu has further tried to emphasize the unity of the seven elements although they are different in their individual character. Rajya is viewed as the kingdom not only in popular parlance but also in smritis and works on polity like Manu’s.10

Manu’s king is an ardent supporter of the divinity principle and he also believes in Matyas-anyaya and the application of the danda, the danda being the coercive power or authority of the ruler or the power of punishment. The basis of punishment, according to Manu, is dharmasutra. He says:

‘Dandasasti Praja Sarba

Danda abavirakhyati,

Danda Suptesu Jagarti

Dandam Dharma Bidurbudha’11

Manu further elaborates that the punishment meted out should be in proportion to the severity of the crime committed.12 Manu and Kautilya share similar views on the coercive authority or danda of the king. Manu develops this thought further on the lines of the old arthashastra thinkers. Manu further states that the Lord created danda for the sake of king and kingdom, and then made his own son the protector of all creatures and dharma or law. Danda not only rules over people but also protects them. The whole world is kept in order by the fear of danda. The king who is truthful, wise, virtuous, efficient and impartial is justified to use danda. On the other hand, the king who is corrupt and deceitful is destroyed by the same danda which he inflicts. He is destroyed along with his relatives and kingdom. The whole world stands in awe of one who is ready to apply danda (Manu VII, 103). No individual, be he the father, the mother, friend, or domestic priest, is exempt from the king’s danda, should they fail to carry out their duties (VIII, 334).

The function of the danda is to ensure individual security of person and property as well as stability of the social order. This concept of danda is in complete harmony with the doctrine of divine creation and endowment of the temporal ruler. Danda is at times also identified with dharma or law, indicating that one is the essential means for fulfilling the other. Manu also lays down the principle of the king’s unlimited jurisdiction on all offenders and criminals irrespective of their social or political status. This is in conformity with the Arthashastra principle of danda and its application. He further states that God made punishment or danda to enable the king to discharge his duties effectively. He has also cautioned that power or force should be used judiciously after ensuring that the punishment is given only to those who are actually found guilty, with the intention of correcting them and at the same time serving as a warning to others.

Chapter Seven of Manusmriti also deals with the duties a king is supposed to perform. It lists eight types of duties for the king. These duties are concerned with income, expenditure, maintenance of the conduct of the personnel, building of roads and forts (durga), building ties with allies etc. The king must treat all subjects equally and be free from any kind of apathy towards any section of the people, except the guilty. The king should always take the counsel of learned individuals. One of his most important duties is to defend the rajya. It was also his duty to support and look after the helpless, aged, disabled, pregnant women, widows, orphans and those suffering from diseases and calamities.

Manu reiterates the Arthasastra doctrine of the four political expedients of conciliation, bribery, discussion and force. He considers all of them to be important, but is of the opinion that force should be used only as the last alternative. Manu also deals at length with the organization of the government. Manusmriti provides for the formation of a council of ministers in the organization of government to aid and advise the king in the proper functioning of the administration. The text absolutely forbids arbitrary and despotic rule of the king. He made provision for the appointment of high officials or ministers called sachiva to look after each department separately. The number of the ministers varied between eight and ten according to the importance of the portfolios held. These ministers had to be learned, efficient and well acquainted with the various problems they might encounter. They also had to be learned in the Vedas and be loyal to the Rajan or the king.13 The ministers belonged to two categories. The first were those who held the post hereditarily and the second were those who were appointed for their intelligence and efficiency.

Manusmriti also laid down five principles for the appointment of the council of ministers. These were the principles of tradition, ability or qualification, examination, fulfilment of objectives and lastly the test of courage or bravery. It also stipulated a division of power and distribution of functions among the ministers on the basis of efficiency and merit. Manu also makes it clear that the king should always discharge his duties in consultation with the ministers, both collectively and individually. According to Manu, a wise king must always follow the opinion of the adhikarins or ministers with portfolios, the precedents and his subjects. He must never follow his own opinion. When the sovereign becomes independent (of his council), he runs the risk of ruin. In time, he loses the state and his subjects.14

Manu’s also looks into the matter of local government and the army, which is the means of controlling the subjects as well as the boundaries of the kingdom or state. His format for local administration consists of a number of officials at various levels in charge of single and larger units of villages with a minister of the king to regularly scrutinize their work. The primary unit of local administration is the village with a headman. The successively higher levels of local government were formed by groups of ten, twenty, hundred and a thousand villages. He also insisted on a superintendent of all affairs with an army of spies to assist him in ‘exploring the behaviour of the people’. Local government as a whole should be placed under a minister at the headquarters. A company of soldiers must be stationed in the midst of two, three, five or hundreds of villages for the protection of the kingdom.

Principles of Government

Manu also talks about the principles and policies of the government, which can be classified under two heads:

1. Public security
2. Interstate relations

Public security: Under the policy of public security, the king was required to detect two classes of thieves with the help of the spies. The first class of thieves called ‘open thieves’ were those who took bribes and lived by fraudulent sale of commodities. This class included gamblers, fortune tellers, cheats, rouges, and officials and physicians guilty of improper conduct. The second class of thieves was called the ‘secret thieves’. They include burglars, robbers, dacoits and so forth. Manu also mentions methods and techniques to be employed by the king for the detection and punishment of both these classes of culprits. The king was to decide about the offence or crime committed by them, and mete out punishment accordingly. Different punishments were prescribed for different kinds of crimes that included dishonest behavior of tradesmen like goldsmiths, etc. Manu also was of the opinion that royal officers and vassals who do not discharge their duties honestly and remain indifferent at the time of the crime being committed should also be punished. Members of the public who do not resist when a village was plundered, or a dyke damaged or a highway robbery committed were also to be punished for their actions or inactions. Confiscation of the property of the rich indulging in crime or dishonesty, imposing a heavy fine on ministers and judges were also permissible and were to be used by the king to punish the erring.

Finance was important even in that era and Manu knew that no government could work without finance. He supported the idea of taxation to be imposed by the king. He listed seven different kinds of taxes, viz., (i) land revenue, (ii) fees, (iii) fines, (iv) taxes for the use of water in a river and plying of boats, (v) taxes on animals, (vi) taxes on artisans and various other professions and, lastly, (vii) sales tax.

Interstate relations: Manu also showed that the delicate art of diplomacy required six elements or gunas. These were:

1. Sandhi: treaty or peace or alliance
2. Vigraha: war
3. Asane: neutrality
4. Yana: making preparation for attack without actually declaring war
5. Samsraya: seeking the protection of another
6. Dvaidhibhava: making peace with one, and waging war against another

Manu favoured a king agreeing to make peace when he was sure of superiority in future and of his loss at the present. He prescribed that the king shall wage war only when he knew that he was strong enough to defeat the enemy and that his own army was well disposed towards him. The king, said Manu, shall not engage in war when he is weak in chariots and troops. He shall divide his forces when his enemy is stronger and take refuge with a rich and powerful king when he is easily assailable by the enemy’s forces. Finally, while determining his war policy, the king shall take into consideration the future as well as the immediate present, along with the positive and negative aspects of all past actions before coming to any final decision. Manu also advised his king that to follow Kshatriya dharma is to obtain victory in war and not to retreat from battle.15 Manu has prescribed detailed rules for strategies for kings facing an attack. The king should march during the season favourable for the army and should provide necessary weapons to the troops for the occasion. Under exceptional circumstances the king may march if he is sure of his victory or if the enemy is in distress.

After the battle, came the next stage of signing treaties. Manu talks of three objectives of treaties. The first was the acquisition of an ally or mitra, second came money or hiranya and, lastly, acquiring land or bhumi. He observes that the king prospers not so much by the acquisition of money and land, as by acquiring a royal ally, who, though weak at the present, may turn into a powerful one in the future. The king is even advised by Manu to abandon without hesitation even rich and fertile lands if it is in conflict with his personal safety and security.

Manu and Kautilya have divergent views on the subject of diplomacy. Manu does not believe in expansionism or territorial annexation while the latter advocates it. He also interprets the six gunas or principles of diplomacy differently. Manu stresses more on the balance of power, because he believes the strength of a king cannot be demonstrated only by waging war. His approach to diplomacy is more ethical in nature than political.

Manu and Varnashrama and Statecraft

In his social conceptualization, Manu has prescribed the rules each individual had to follow from birth to death. In this regard, he has laid down his concept of varnashrama in detail, where he divides the whole society into four varnas viz., Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. The duties of all these varnas are different yet complementary to each other.16 Manu has acknowledged the principles of integration of all social units for the purpose of universal welfare related to the cosmic cycle, where a man’s rights were granted automatically if he performed the duties accordingly. Rights and duties are therefore made complementary in nature. Manu’s also dwells on karma, and he believes that man’s birth is decided according to his performances in his past life. Manu explains his concept of social order in terms of the laws of dharma and karma. In his opinion, social order can be maintained only if all the four varnas perform their respective duties suitably and in a harmonious manner. According to him, one who performs his duties in the right manner attains heavenly state and all his desires are fulfilled in his lifetime.

Manu pigeonholes various occupational varnas under the umbrella called shudras. The caste system that emerged gradually in Indian society is the result of a long social evolution extending over centuries. Manu wanted to incorporate the sometimes conflicting rights of various groups of people within the framework of the varnashrama. He tried to create a pluralistic society by offering special hereditary occupations and cultural freedom to the detribalized castes. Manu also mentions various tribes like the Nishadas, Ambasthas, etc. and prescribes the occupations they could take up. He included even the foreign tribes and those living in the border regions like Kambojas, Yavanas, Sakas, Pallavas, Kiratas, into the category of shudras and they were regarded as twice-born.

Manu gives a great deal of importance to customs, which he considered essential for the maintenance of social life. These customs were based on the religious principles or dhamasutra and were binding on all individuals. Social organization formed the basis of polity and Manu gives it due attention.

Manusmriti also deals at length with various aspects of statecraft including the rules and principles relating to various branches of royal revenue, its administration and expenditure. The dharmasutras justify the taxes levied by the king because he is charged with the duty of protecting his subjects. According to U. N. Ghosal, the concept of protection is deep-rooted and as Manu says, ‘A king who affords no protection yet receives the sixth part of the produce as taxes [brings] upon himself all the foulness of his whole people’.17 Chapter Seven of the text deals with the methods and principles of taxation comprehensively. The king could not levy taxes nor change the rates at his pleasure as the rates of taxes were fixed. In fact, Kautilya in the Arthashastra has covered in more detail the sources of land revenue, inequality and injustice. But the admirers of Manu, on the other hand, argue that those are mostly interpolations and must have been made by misogynists. The same argument is cited in the case of his hatred against shudras. According to these critics, Manu had a broader vision of life, where men all over the world naturally fall into one or the other of these four varnas, according to their inner and outer characteristics.

In fact, Manu tried to create a social order out of diverse and conflicting elements which was needed for the society of his time. Manusmriti should be examined from this larger perspective.18

Due importance is given to women’s problems in Manusmriti. Manu examines the inheritance and property rights of women. He uses the term stridhan which in fact refers to special kinds of property given to a woman on certain occasions in different stages of her life. But the term stridhan underwent significant change in subsequent periods. Besides these, there is also a discussion on the economic position of widows. A widow had the right to retain her ornaments. Manu also prescribes a lot of dos and don’ts for widows. He also refers to the Niyoga system. When Manu is compared with Kautilya, the latter has more liberal views on widows. There are many passages in Manusmriti in which it is stated that women should be honoured and their rights shall be maintained.18 But again these are verses that reflect a despairing attitude towards the Shudra women and persons belonging to the lower ranks of social hierarchy. Perhaps this is the reason why many historians who examined the book not in its proper perspective branded Manu as a reactionary law-giver who advocated a social system that was based on oppression.

Legal Tenets of Manu

Manusmriti in due course became a source of modern legal literature and procedure for European and Indian legal practitioners who were required to know the fundamental contents of Dharmashastras in general and Manusmriti in particular. Several notable works on Hindu law have drawn heavily from Manusmriti beginning with Thomas Strage’s Hindu law published in the 1830s. Other books include Gibelin’s Study on the Civil Laws of the Hindus in 1846, Wilson’s Glossary in 1855, which till date is indispensable for students of the Indian legal system and in many of the works of scholars like E. B. Cowell (1870–72), G. C. Sarkar (1891), and Priyanath Sen (1918) the code of Manu has been used.

One criticism often levelled against Manu is his mixing of law with religion. Manu claimed that his laws have divine origin but this can be seen as more of a sign of the era he lived in and there is nothing fundamentally wrong about it. In fact, most ancient people regarded their laws as having divine origin. In ancient Egypt, law was attributed to the Gods.19 Both laws of Manusmriti and the Code of Hammurabi claimed to be based on divine inspiration. Yahweh is said to have dictated the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments to Moses. Further, all the laws found in the Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were said to be a direct revelation of God to Moses.

The code of Manu also talks about established practices that encompassed observance of caste, domestic rituals, funeral rites, oblation to men and to God, and religious and philosophical discussions on the subject of secular laws. Manu always emphasized a way of life in accordance with the philosophy and spirit of the Vedas, and he interpreted it in his own fashion. His emphasis on the religious and philosophical aspects of life and his discourses are all part of the cultural tradition of the subcontinent. A comprehensive study of the ancient laws anywhere in the world will make it clear that no distinction was made by society between faith, beliefs, rituals, customs, morality or ethics, on the one hand, and the different clauses and provisions of the so-called positive laws, on the other. For Manu the whole of the Vedas were a source of dharma or law. Even Blackstone (18th century) considered law to be divine revelation, but it came down to earth through the human agency.

Manu was the first who classified law under eighteen heads and called it Vyavaharapada. The sections were as follows:20

1. Non-payment of debts (rndana)
2. Deposit and pledge (niksepa)
3. Sale without ownership (sambhuya-sannuthand)
4. Concerns among partners (sambhuya-sannuthana)
5. Resumption of gifts (dattasyanapakrma)
6. Non-payment of wages (vetanadana)
7. Non-execution of agreements (samviduyati-karma)
8. Recession of sale and purchase (krayavikraya-nusaye)
9. Dispute between owner and his servants (swamipalavivida)
10. Dispute regarding boundaries (simavivada)
11. Assault (vakparusya)
12. Defamation (dandaparusya)
13. Theft (steya)
14. Robbery and violence (sahasa)
15. Adultery (strisangrahana)
16. Duties of man and wife (stripumdharma)
17. Separation of man and wife (stripumdharma)
18. Gambling and betting (dyertasamahvcya)

Manu adds that this classification is for convenience and does not encompass all types of disputes but only those which are most important.21 He puts greater emphasis on the concept of justice and equity and held that he who violates justice is always despicable. The king is the dispenser of justice and the original court as well as the appellate tribunal is combined in him. The king presides over the courts and in this he is assisted by Brahmins and experienced councilors. Cases are to be decided in accordance with the principles of local usages and the institution of the sacred law.

In case the king is unable to dispense justice himself due to whatsoever reason, he should appoint a learned Brahmin with three sabhyas (assessors) to decide the cases. Once the defendant denies the charges, the complainant should call for witnesses or other evidence, and in case of conflict in witnesses’ statements, the king shall accept as true, evidence of the majority. If there are no witnesses, the judge should follow the policy of investigation. Manu’s ideas of evidence is further systematized by Yajnavalkya, who lists three kinds of proofs: documents, witnesses and possessions.22

Manu’s idea of justice also encompasses the concept of social justice of today. He called it the social purpose of justice, where the king must protect the rights of those who were unable to do so themselves. He adds that it was the king’s duty to safeguard the inheritance and other forms of property of a minor until the latter returns from his teacher’s house or attains adulthood. He also had to take care of barren women, people who have no sons, orphans, wives and widows and women suffering from various diseases.23

Manu’s ideas on varnashrama are reflected in his criminal laws particularly those relating to morality and personal hygiene. He prescribes different punishments for identical offences based on the caste of the criminal and the victim, and as a general rule Brahmins are exempted from capital punishment. Manu has elaborated on the various aspects of law. He is also of the opinion that only under special circumstances, like self-defence and similar situations, can law be taken in one’s own hand. Besides capital punishment, he also prescribed other forms of punishment, but all punishments are to be awarded and executed after careful consideration. The king is the final authority to settle all disputes.24 Thus Manusmriti is the first treatise to give a regular elucidation of the legal system that was followed in the Dhamasastras and it provides a basis for legal interpretation, with the assistance of learned Brahmins and experienced councilors. It also provided a basis for modern legal interpretation both in India and abroad, mainly in Europe. Kautilya also deals with many common aspects of statecraft and law in his Arthasastra but he differs from Manu in several key aspects. They are at odds over handing out capital punishment to Brahmins who have committed treason. Kautilya also shows more compassion towards shudras and women compared to Manu. But it also needs to be stressed that Manu’s Brahmin is the embodiment of idealisation of Man, the symbol of the best and highest virtues which man could acquire. Kau-tilya’s Brahmin on the other hand, though a superior, knowledgeable human being, fails to reach that exalted height of perfection as visualised by Manu. The two thinkers differ with regard to the role and status of a Brahmin.25

It becomes clearly evident from this discussion that the primary concern of the author of Manusmriti was to spell out the infrastructure of an all-embracing society, which in course of time became synonymous with Hinduism and the Hindu way of life. In Manu’s age, this vast subcontinent consisted of numerous ethnic and linguistic communities with varying degrees of perceptions and values of life. Manu could foresee that this cultural and social diversity needed to be kept as one organic entity. Manusmriti deals with practically all the aspects of life — political, economic, legal, social, etc. It is a monumental work of epic proportions, an omnibus which continues to be relevant till date. Manu endeavours to use law and politics as agents of continuity, for transforming human life to achieve normatively defined goals. It is the moral embodiment of the vision of that great thinker of ancient India who preached pragmatism as well as idealism. This is perhaps the most remarkable feature of the text which has provided a touch of universality, tempered by particularities that transcend the frontiers of time.