Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part VI of VII: The Failings of ‘Manusmriti’ and the ‘Hindu Law’

The Code of Gentoo Laws thus remained largely imperfect and created numerous problems and conflicting opinions. British officials soon increasingly mistrusted the Pandits (Brahmins) and were frustrated at the way they thought they [Pandits] were misleading the courts primarily by favouring the interests if their own, and dealing with a spectrum of customs that were not certified by any apparent ‘holy scripture [25]. This consequently prompted Sir William Jones (an English philologist) to write in a letter to Hastings on the 20th October 1791, “…for I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pundits [Pandits], who deal out Hindu law, as they please.” [21] Jones then proceeded to learn Sanskrit and in attempt to rectify the problems associated with the Anglo-Brahminal hybrid legislative system, translated the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ in 1794.

Jones was determined that the British should administer the best ‘shastric’ law possible. His translation of the ‘Manusmriti’ gradually received wide publicity amongst the British (and eventually Europe – a German translation of the ‘Manusmriti appeared in 1797) [21], and eventually a policy decision by the India Office (the government spearheading British India) kept this document in circulation to project it as an example of the Hindu Law or the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law is merely an enforcement of Hindu ‘shastric’ instructions under which Hindus were governed anyway, by the British who had inherited the authority to administer this law [25].

Sir William Jones himself in a series of letters with Charles Wilkins (a printer/writer under the service of East India Company who first translated the Bhagavad Gita) had initially proclaimed that he had no intention to learn Sanskrit. In a letter to Wilkins in 1784, Jones wrote, “…happy should I be to follow you in the same track (in reference to learning about the untrodden paths of Hindu [Sanskrit] learning), but life is too short.” [21] Remarkably, he changed his mind in 1785, when he received a copy of the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ as a present, and found the temptation too great to resist and started learning Sanskrit. However, what authority does this give to the ‘Manusmriti’, a scripture that was only translated by Jones after by chance receiving it as a present? I do not wish to impart any blame onto Jones for translating this document or for the widespread attention it received. But, these sequalae of events resulted in the ‘Manusmriti’ being eventually widely accepted as evidence (and wrongly so) of the ‘Hindu Law’ as ordered by ‘shastric’ instructions, that the British were administrating.

The contents of the ‘Manusmriti’ itself are not hugely dissimilar to the Vishnusmriti, and likewise advocate caste based discrimination, and therefore was not significantly different from existing Anglo-Brahmanical Law that was already in place in terms of dealing with the treatment received by each respective caste. What changed was the fact that the Pandits eventually had less room to manoeuvre around and manipulate the law to their interests as previously done, allowing a more standardized and consistent legislative and judiciary system to take shape in India, albeit not formally addressing or even effectively dealing with the issues revolving around caste discrimination. Below, I have inserted a few excerpts from the ‘Manusmriti’ [26] for your viewing:

Manusmriti, Chapter III
It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

Manusmriti, Chapter VIII
A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

Manusmriti, Chapter X
No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

Here, I find it worthy of mention, that although this text has prescribed specific and severe punishment for what seemingly appears to be trivial ‘offences’, mostly committed by a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ against another belonging to a ‘higher caste’, I naturally assumed that following this pattern of caste based discrimination, the punishment dealt to the person would depend on the his/her caste as such: a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ would be dealt a more severe punishment, compared to another belonging to a ‘higher caste’ committing the same crime. However, I found myself pleasantly surprised that I was wrong in my assumptions. There was a strange oddity amongst this scripture that seemed to contradict the relative bias of this text towards the ‘upper caste’. Apparently, a person belonging to a ‘upper caste’ such as a Brahmin or a king is considered to be more knowledgeable and learned in the ‘shastric’ laws, and thereby possess a greater ability and understanding to distinguish between what is lawful and what is otherwise; and therefore if he knowingly commits an offence will thereby be subjected to a more severe punishment compared to a Sudra, for example, who is assumed to be lacking in this knowledge, and is given the benefit of doubt.

Manusmriti, Chapter VII
Neither a father, nor a teacher, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son, nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by a king, if they do not keep within their duty.

Where another common man would be fined one karshapana, the king shall be fined one thousand; that is the settled rule.

In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sudra shall be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold,

That of a Brahmana sixty-fourfold, or quite a hundredfold, or (even) twice four-and-sixtyfold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the offence [26].

Nevertheless, ultimately neither the ‘Hindu Law’ as prescribed by the Gentoo Code nor the Manusmriti did any favours for the discrimination against persons occupying the lower strata of social order. One must understand the Hinduism and Brahmanical Law (‘Hindu Law’ as administered by the Brahmins) although closely related are not synonymous. Whilst Hinduism explains the characters of a Brahmins or a Sudra in terms of his ‘varna’ and ‘guna’, Brahmanical Law defines caste by birth, marriage and occupation. Whilst Hinduism explains the role of each particular ‘varna’, Brahmanical Law instructs and orders each particular ‘caste’. Hinduism contains the teachings of God. Brahmanical Laws contains the teachings of Brahmins. Unfortunately the Brahmins, who were entrusted to distribute the teachings of Hinduism and educate the society, have failed miserably. These Brahmins, succumbing to corruption can only be Brahmins by birth, marriage, occupation or name, but can never be true Brahmins as defined by Hinduism. They may live and remain as priests and leaders amongst men, but will stand in front of God as condemned men for twisting His words and teachings. Brahmanical Law which advocates the caste system is not a logical derivative of Hinduism, but instead, the Brahmanical Law is the corruption of the teachings of Hinduism.

Eventually in 1787, Hastings was impeached for corruption. The failings of the early period of the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law was due to its unconventional origins, lacking a clear structure, outline or guideline leading to a confusion amongst the British judges, with no clear understanding of the legislative system could only attempt to satisfy the litigating public, whilst military forces were used to maintain peace and enforce the compliance with the decrees [20]. It was the role of the subordinate native officials to produce a decision to settle a dispute, which previously would have been settled at leisure amongst local leaders, or might have even never have arisen in the form of litigation at all; a system vulnerable to corruption [20] under Hastings rule. Eventually, local leaders, Pandits and other Brahmins dealt out law as they pleased, under the conditions that the government retained all the advantages of authority and jurisdiction which the Company had inherited with regard to Hindu caste matters [20]. Hastings, upon his return to England was subjected to a series of charges by Edmund Burke (Hastings was only impeached for seven of the twenty two charges brought forth by Burke) including benefiting from lucrative contracts by using his position in power, extortion, torture and waging unjust wars; for both personal gains and British colonial interest.

In one of the most powerful orations in history, Edmund Burke delivered his opening speech at the trial of Warren Hastings on February 13, 1788 at the William Rufus Hall at the Westminster; excerpts of his speech which I have included below.

Edmund Burke: At the Trial of Warren Hastings
My lords, I do not mean now to go farther than just to remind your lordships of this—that Mr. Hastings’ government was one whole system of oppression, of robbery of individuals, of spoliation of the public, and of supersession of the whole system of the English government, in order to vest in the worst of the natives all the power that could possibly exist in any government; in order to defeat the ends which all governments ought, in common, to have in view. In the name of the Commons of England, I charge all this villainy upon Warren Hastings, in this last moment of my application to you.

…My lords, what is it that we want here, to a great act of national justice? Do we want a cause, my lords? You have the cause of oppressed princes, of undone women of the first rank, of desolated provinces, and of wasted kingdoms.

…Do you want a criminal, my lords? When was there so much iniquity ever laid to the charge of any one? No, my lords, you must not look to punish any other such delinquent from India. Warren Hastings has not left substance enough in India to nourish such another delinquent

…I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights and liberties he has subverted; whose properties he has destroyed; whose country he has laid waste and desolate

…I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured and oppressed, in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life [27].

The subsequent trial lasted for six years, and eventually in 1975, Hastings was acquitted of all charges. However, the damage that Hastings administration of the British India has caused the society was already severe. Hastings hand in implementing a flawed legislative and judiciary system provided the Brahmins and Pandits the licence to formally exercise their power, and allow the continuous oppression and discrimination against persons belonging to lower social groups or castes, under the false pretences that these laws were as dictated by Hinduism and they were merely holding to authority to implement these laws as they were originally meant to be. One may argue that following Hastings discharge from his position as Governor-General, there were many opportunities to put this wrong to right, either by the efforts of colonial administrators or the Brahmins and Pandits themselves. But with both groups equally benefiting from this Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid Law, neither group were willing to commit themselves to rectify these flaws as it would mean the letting go of the benefits and perks that they have been privileged to, that they have grown to take for granted as their right.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)