By M.K.Sudarshan
Chennai, India : June 22, 2026
Introduction: The Manu Smriti Smokescreen
In contemporary Indian discourse, the Manu Smriti has become the whipping boy for every alleged social ill in Hindu society. From temple entry bans to women’s reservation debates to caste discrimination, Manu is invoked as the preeminent symbol of “Brahminical patriarchy” and “institutionalised misogyny.”
Liberal historians, social anthropologists, and even constitutional reformers have found in Manu a convenient scapegoat—a single text that supposedly encapsulates 2,500 years of “Indian patriarchal oppression.” But this narrative is built on glaring historical inaccuracies, false textual equivalences, and deliberate misinterpretations that serve ideological purposes far more than scholarly truth.
The Manu Smriti was never the “law of Vedic society.” It was never universally abided across India. It was never even considered supreme by Hindu traditions themselves. Yet, through a colonial-Orientalist projection that liberal historians have perpetuated, Manu has been elevated to a position he never held in authentic Indian history.
This op-ed exposes how the Manu Smriti myth was constructed, why it served British imperial purposes, and how it continues to distort genuine understanding of Indian women’s historical dignity. Today, even Indian elites and intellectuals find it easy to use Manu Smriti to caricature Hindu society by bandying about that pejorative Western characterisation: Patriarchy.
*******************
Part I: The Four Glaring Inaccuracies in the Manu-as-Patriarchy Narrative
Inaccuracy #1: Manu Smriti Was Never Vedic Law
The most fundamental error in the anti-Manu narrative is the conflation of Shruti (Vedic revelation) with Smriti (human-written texts).
Vedic Authority: The Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sama, Atharva compiled as “apaurusheya revelations) 1500–600 BCE, (or even earlier) are Shruti—“that which is heard”—eternal revelation, supreme authority in Hindu philosophy.
Manu’s Status: The Manu Smriti (200 BCE–200 CE) is Smriti—“that which is remembered”—human composition, subordinate to Vedas.
The Contradiction: Liberal historians treat Manu as “the Vedic law” while Hindu traditions themselves have never accepted this. The Bhagavad Gita (6.13) explicitly states that Shruti is supreme.
The Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya rejects Smriti authority when it contradicts Shruti. Yet modern critics invoke Manu as “Vedic law” to stigmatise “Vedic patriarchy.”
The Reality: The Vedic view of women was completely different from Manu’s:
• 30+ women rishikas (sages) revealed Rig Veda hymns—including Vak Ambrini, Maitreyi, Lopamudra [Rig Veda 1.165]
• Women received Upanayana (sacred thread ceremony) and Vedic education
• Women chose their husbands through Gandharva and Prajabarta marriage forms
• Women were addressed as samrajni (queen) of the household in Satapatha Brahmana
• The Vedic term Purandhi means “woman is more intelligent than man”
The Manu Problem: By conflating Manu (Smriti) with Vedas (Shruti), liberal historians stigmatise 2,000 years of Vedic feminine glory as “patriarchal oppression.”
Inaccuracy #2: Manu Was Never Universal—South India Rejected It
The anti-Manu narrative presents Manu as a “pan-Indian social contract” abided by all Hindus. This is historically false.
North India vs. South India:
• Manu’s Region: Written in North India (200 BCE–200 CE), during the breakdown of Maurya/Shunga empires, when orthodoxy faced Buddhist/Jain challenges
• South India’s Reality: From 200 CE to 1750 CE, South India followed different Dharmashastras (Yajnavalka, Parashara, Vishnu)—NOT Manu
Evidence from South India:
• Women controlled household finances and managed property
• Women were yajamānis (ritual hosts) who performed sacrifices; males were designated agnihotris while their wives who participated in yagnya with them were designated somidevamma
• Women were considered embodiments of Lakshmi—sinless like the Ganga
• Sati (widow burning) was rare/non-existent until 18th-century Rajasthan
• Women retained more autonomy than in North India
The Sri Vaishnava Test: The Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya (8th–12th CE) explicitly teaches:
• “He who abuses women, abuses Lakshmi herself”
• “No inauspiciousness whatsoever exists in women”
• Women undergo religious initiation and are encouraged to study sacred texts
• During menstruation, women are relieved of duties and given rest—not treated as “polluted”
The Contradiction: By treating Manu as “pan-Indian,” liberal historians erase South India’s liberal tradition and misrepresent the Vedic feminine ideal that South India preserved.
Inaccuracy #3: Manu Was Never “Preeminent”—Multiple Dharmashastras Existed
The anti-Manu narrative presents Manu as the “authoritative law” for Hindu society. This ignores the textual plurality of Dharmaśāstra tradition.
The Reality: At least 18 major Dharmashastras existed, including:
• Yajnavalka Smriti
• Parashara Smriti
• Vishnu Smriti
• Narada Smriti
• Brihaspati Smriti
• Katyayana Smriti
Manu’s Status: Manu was one among many—not preeminent. Regional scholars preferred different texts:
• Bengal: Followed Dayabhaga (not Manu)
• South India: Followed Mitakshara (Vijnaneshwara, not Manu, Apasthamba)
• Maharashtra: Followed Vijnaneshwara’s commentary
The Contradiction: Liberal historians treat Manu as “the Hindu law” while Hindu legal tradition itself never accepted this. The British colonial administrators made Manu canonical, not Hindu society.
Inaccuracy #4: Manu Was a Defensive Text, Not the Origin of Misogyny
The most damaging error is attributing “Indian misogyny” to Manu as its origin. This ignores the historical context of Manu’s composition.
Manu’s Context (200 BCE–200 CE):
• Written during breakdown of Maurya/Shunga empires
• Orthodox Hinduism faced existential threats from Buddhism and Jainism
• Manu was a defensive codification to preserve orthodoxy
• “The severity of the Dharma-shastras was doubtless a commentary arising from the insecurity of the orthodox in an age of flux” (a historical scholar)
The Timeline:
• 1500–200 BCE: Vedic women had full equality (30+ rishikas, Upanayana, marriage choice)
• 200 BCE–200 CE: Manu written as orthodoxy’s defensive response
• 200 CE–1200 CE: Manu remained one of many texts; regional variations dominant
• 1200–1750 CE: Medieval caste endogamy intensified; regional practices varied
• 1757–1947: British colonialism elevated Manu to “canonical Hindu law”
The Reality: Manu codified existing anxieties, not originated misogyny. The Vedic feminine ideal (1,500 years before Manu) was completely egalitarian. The 18th-century sati practice in Rajasthan was a regional deviation, not “Manu’s law.”
The Contradiction: By blaming Manu for “all Indian misogyny,” liberal historians ignore 1,500 years of Vedic feminine equality and erase South India’s liberal tradition.
(Continued in Part 2)