Mahatma Gandhi on Manusmriti

Manusmriti has often been invoked and condemned as a code of scriptural law perpetuating untouchability and creating an inflexible  caste hierarchy  which Dr. Ambedkar described with anguish and pain as "graded social inequality" fostering what he called a "descending order of contempt and ascending order of reverence.  What we have so far heard and studied is the intensely critical stand taken by Dalit leaders on Manusmriti beginning with its public burning by Dr. Ambedkar on 25th December 1927.  There has been continuing  denunciation of it by countless leaders and young minds who swear by Dr. B R Ambedkar and the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity and the enduring values associated with reclamation of human personality. So far discourse on Manusmriti in public life and academic domain gets centered around the impactful narrative very carefully framed by Dalit leaders who deplore that caste Hindus perpetuated untouchability based on the vicious and obnoxious provisions of that scripture.  Hardly one hears of other outstanding leaders of freedom struggle whose opinion on Manusmriti preceded Dr. Ambedkar's in terms of intensity of criticism and its rejection.  While scholars set the discourse on Mahatma Gandhi vis a vis Dr. Ambedkar in antagonistic terms completely and deliberately obscuring their commonalities, it is important to explore the convergence of their thoughts and common fund of values which they shared in critically assessing Hinduism.

Recent exploration of Mahatma Gandhi's Collected Works  revealed that Mahatma Gandhi had rejected Manusmriti even as he affirmed his credentials as a Sanatani Hindu based on his adherence to morality and compassion of religion. Around 5th November 1917 while speaking in Godhra on the theme "A Stain on India's Forehead" he referred to untouchability and its persistence as orthodoxy and hypocrisy and said that it was no use quoting verses from Manusmriti and other scriptures in defence of orthodoxy.  He then said "A number of verses in it  are apocryphal, a number of them are quite meaningless" and those who followed the injunctions in them would get polluted.  Such strong disapproval of Manusmriti brings out his critical outlook on scriptural foundation of religion which we find much later Dr. Ambedkar categorically asserting that scripture based religion should yield place to a religion based on liberty, equality and fraternity.  It is rather educative to note that much before the advent of Dr. Ambedkar in public life it was Mahatma Gandhi who while declaring in a letter written to Ranchhodlal Patwardhan on 9the September 1918 from Sabarmati Ashram that he took up the problem of untouchables purely out of considerations of Dharma and not politics asserted that "If we were to follow some of the tenets of Manusmriti, there would be moral anarchy" and so he quietly discarded them altogether. Rejection of Manusmriti by Gandhiji on grounds that it would cause moral anarchy makes him one of the earliest leaders of India who found it unacceptable because of its features which he found repugnant to morality.  On 25th December 1920, exactly seven years before Dr. Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti,Mahatma Gandhi while speaking at Antyaj Conference in Nagpur said that it would not be difficult to put an end to Satanism of the British empire because it was worldly in nature whereas the Satanism of untouchability had taken the colour of religion. Adding further he asserted that if the practice of untouchability was enjoined in the Vedas or the Manusmriti they ought to be replaced. However he raised a question and asked "Where are the men who will write new scriptures?" Expressing his inability to lay down any moral and ethical code for the Hindus he, therefore, exhorted the victims of untouchability to make him worthy of their compassion so that he could fight for them and eradicate untouchability.

It is revealing to note that Mahatma Gandhi disapproved Manusmriti not only on the ground of enjoining the practice of untouchability but also rejected on other grounds.  While speaking at Juhu on 30th March 1924 he described Manusmriti as an  authoritative book categorically permitted flesh eating and asked, "Will You, therefore, eat meat?". It is such interrogation of the scriptural injunction which distinguished him as a man who applied reason and intellect to evaluate numerous religious propositions.  In fact in 1926 he he said that all that is written in Sanskrit should not be regarded as holy scriptures and every thing written in Manusmriti should not be seen to be relevant for the present day.  He forcefully asserted by saying that "Whether old or new, every thing should be tested on the anvil of reason, and any thing which does not stand the test should be rejected".  

When Dr. Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti on 25th December 1927 Mahatma Gandhi reflected on it in a letter to P. T. Pillay on 4th May 1928 and never considered it as equivalent to burning of foreign cloth.  He further observed, "Burning of foreign cloth is like burning a thing that is injurious; but the burning of Manusmriti is ate best like the burning of an advertisement for foreign cloth showing nothing but childish rage".  The "childish rage" which he referred to was indicative of his partial accord to the burning of Manusmriti which he thought was not at par with the bonfire of foreign clothes. In that letter to Shri Pillay he admitted that he did not regard Manusmriti as an evil as it contained much that was admirable even as it contained many things which were bad. Stating that a reformer would treasure all that is excellent in ancient code he would expurgate all that is injurious or of doubtful value.  In fact Mahatma Gandhi used some aspects of Manusmriti which were morally rich and invigorating while writing a letter to Lord Curzon who while addressing the  convocation  of Calcutta University in 1905 had said that "the highest ideal of truth is to a large extent western conception" and "undoubtedly truth took a high place in the moral codes of the West before it had been similarly honoured in the East, where craftiness and diplomatic wile have always been held in much repute".  Gandhiji refuted and responded to Lord Curzon's speech by quoting several passages from Manusmriti which stressed on lofty moral principles in 1280 BC.  

While accepting all that was good in Manusmriti he was categorical in asserting that it contained a lot of injustice to women and the so called lower castes.  

His acceptance of good aspects of Manusmriti can be juxtaposed with Dr. Ambedkar's invocation of it for the cause of women's right to property when he explained the provisions of Hindu Code Bill and pleaded for its passage.  

Mahatma Gandhi's exposition on Manusmriti brings out his critical faculty and open mind to accept all that is in harmony with reason and morality and reject all that is repugnant to truth and non-violence. In fact he wrote in My Experiments with Truth that "Manusmriti at any rate did not teach me ahimsa".  However he valued certain moral principles from that scripture and flagged them as useful for developing self restraint. Such an open mind in assessing scriptural injunctions is indispensable for our time when bigotry and fanaticism often define public discourse based on outmoded notions of religions and religious texts.