If Brahmins are scholars then why did they allow, the implementation of inhuman practices and inequality in Hindustan by taking Manusmriti as constitution?
Manusmriti was never the constitution of any of the kingdoms in India ever. Kings ruled - they were the supreme adjudicators in matters of law. Kings made up their own laws. They were running the show. Brahmins were a tiny minority and never had any real power. They were kept as advisors and judges or as in the case of King Dhritarashtra - he kept a Sudra advisor who was the wisest man in the land — Vidura.
Most folks, ignorant of Indian history are oblivious to the fact that there were several dynasties of Sudra Kings! Mahapadma Nanda, Mauryas, Palas & some Marathas. Who held power when they were ruling? The Brahmins?
Manusmriti was meant for guiding the lives of the traivarnika folks. Sudras, who form the majority of the population are free from all the rules and restrictions and through their caste syndicates created their own laws and regulations. The castes were all autonomous and conducted their own investigations, trials and punishments. Only in the cases of irreconcilable conflicts and capital crimes was the intervention of the state sought.
When the British were seeking a legal framework to rule India they chose Manusmriti because of its wide ranging legislation - covering state affairs, crime and punishment as well as social and religious matters. Manusmriti even at that time was to be found only in dusty libraries. So the British asked their native informers if there was any code of Hindu law like the Sharia which they applied to their Muslim populations. Their native informers, who were Brahmins said - “Yeah well, boss, there is this ancient code of laws called Manusmriti - we’ll have to search out a palm-leaf manuscript copy for you!” ….. the rest is history.
Remember it was the British that conducted a census on caste in 1865 for the purpose of social engineering. After gathering all the caste data, they then gazetted the castes according to a hierarchy so they could then more efficiently recruit staff to manage the empire. For example soldiers were recruited from the warrior castes, scribes and clerks from the Kayastha caste, teachers and advisors from the Brahmins, economic management recruits were Vaishyas and servants and foot soldiers came from the Sudras. etc. There were hundreds of legal challenges to the hierarchical gazetting at the time, because of the complexity of the system which the administrators wanted to simplify and had unjustifiably elevated and demoted some castes.
So contrary to popular Post-modern ideologues, Brahmins never had sustained political power (there were very few Brahmin kings). Brahmins were focused on their own practice (ācāram) and affairs, never caring what the others were doing unless they came into their ghettos (agrahārams). And most Hindus never listen to what the priests have to say anyway!!
Hindu custom derives from Shastra (scripture) and from Custom & Usage (rīti-rivāj) - the Brahmins generally follow Shastra and the vast majority of Hindus follow Custom & Usage and hold it to be of higher authority than Shastra even when there is a conflict between the two. For example, Shastra severely condemns dowry as wicked and sinful - Custom & Usage endorse it. So no matter how much the priests may condemn dowry - will people change over night? Can the scourge of dowry be blamed on Brahmins?
The Dharma Shastras clearly state that a Brahmin should never give advice to Sudras nor tell them what they should or should not do - they should be left alone to do their own thing (Vasistha 18:24)!
Does this sound like a mandate for control and oppression? In fact most of the caste conflicts even to this day never involve Brahmins! It is usually the other castes quarreling among themselves and jostling for superiority.
yathā yathā hi sad-vṛttam ātiṣṭhatyanusūyakaḥ | tathā tathā imaṁ ca amuṁ ca lokaṁ prāpnotyaninditaḥ ||
The more a (Sudra), keeping himself free from envy, imitates the behaviour of the virtuous, the more he gains, without being censured, (exaltation in) this world and the next. (Manu 10:128)
By
Jagadeesh Krishnan
Psychologist and International Author
9841121780, 9543187772,
9171617660
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Jagadeesh%20Krishnan&cm_sp=det-_-bdp-_-author
No comments:
Post a Comment