Көне Үнді мәтіні – Ману заңдары

Ancient Hindu text

The Manusmriti (; IAST: Manusmṛiti), also known as the Mānava Dharmaśāstra or Laws of Manu, is one of the many legal texts and constitutions among the many Dharmaśāstras of Hinduism. Manusmriti was one of the first Sanskrit texts to be translated into English, in 1776, by British philologist Sir William Jones, and was used to construct the Hindu law code, for the East India Company administered enclaves.

The title Manusmriti is a relatively modern term and a late innovation, probably coined because the text is in a verse form.

Philologists Jones and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, in the 18th century, dated Manusmriti to around 1250 BCE and 1000 BCE respectively, which, from later linguistic developments, is untenable due to the language of the text which must be later than the late Vedic texts such as the Upanishads, themselves dated a few centuries later, around 500 BCE. Later scholars shifted the chronology of the text to between the 1st or 2nd century CE. Olivelle adds that numismatic evidence and the mention of gold coins as a fine suggest the text may date to the 2nd or 3rd century CE. Most scholars consider the text a composite produced by many authors put together over a long period. Olivelle states that the various ancient and medieval Indian texts claim revisions and editions were derived from the original text with 100,000 verses and 1,080 chapters. However, the text version in modern use, according to Olivelle, is likely the work of a single author or a chairman with research assistants. Manusmriti, Olivelle states, was not a new document it drew on other texts, and reflects "a crystallization of an accumulated knowledge" in ancient India. Its contents can be traced to Kalpasutras of the Vedic era, which led to the development of Smartasutras consisting of Grihyasutras and Dharmasutras. The foundational texts of Manusmriti include many of these sutras, all from an era preceding the common era. Most of these ancient texts are now lost, and only four have survived: the law codes of Apastamba, Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasishtha.

The ancient version of the text has been subdivided into twelve Adhyayas (chapters), but the original text had no such division. The text covers different topics, and is unique among ancient Indian texts in using "transitional verses" to mark the end of one subject and the start of the next. The first 58 verses are attributed by the text to Manu, while the remaining more than two thousand verses are attributed to his student Bhrigu.

The Dharmasya Yonih (Sources of the Law) has twenty four verses and one transition verse. Translation 2: The root of the dharma is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself. |Manusmriti 2.6

Other scholars point to the inconsistencies and have questioned the authenticity of verses, and the extent to which verses were changed, inserted or interpolated into the original, at a later date. Sinha, for example, states that less than half, or only 1,214 of the 2,685 verses in Manusmriti, may be authentic. Verses such as 3.55–3.62 of Manusmriti, for example, glorify the position of women, while verse such as 9.3 and 9.17 do the opposite. Other passages found in Manusmriti, such as those relating to Ganesha, are modern era insertions and forgeries. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the verses from 3.55–60 may be about respect given to a woman in her home, but within a strong patriarchal system. Nelson in 1887, in a legal brief before the Madras High Court of British India, had stated, "there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the Manu Smriti itself, and that these contradictions would lead one to conclude that such a commentary did not lay down legal principles to be followed but were merely recommendatory in nature." Mahatma Gandhi remarked on the observed inconsistencies within Manusmriti as follows:

There are numerous classical commentaries on the Manusmṛti written in the medieval period. Bhāruci is the oldest known commentator on the Manu Smṛti. Kane places him in the late 10th or early 11th century, Olivelle places him in the 8th century, and Derrett places him between 600 and 800 CE. From these three opinions we can place Bhāruci anywhere from the early 7th century CE to the early 11th century CE. Bhāruci's commentary, titled Manu sastra vivarana, has far fewer number of verses than the Kullūka Calcutta vulgate version in circulation since the British colonial era, and it refers to more ancient texts that are believed to be lost. It is also called Raja Vimala, and J. Duncan M. Derrett states Bharuci was "occasionally more faithful to his source's historical intention" than other commentators. Medhātithi's commentary on Manu Smṛti has been widely studied. Scholars such as Buhler, Kane, and Lingat believe he was from north India, likely the Kashmir region. His commentary on Manusmriti is estimated to be from 9th to 11th century. Govindarāja's commentary, titled Manutika, is an 11th century commentary on Manusmriti, referred to by Jimutavahana and Laksmidhara, and was plagiarised by Kullūka, states Olivelle. Nārāyana's commentary, titled Manvarthavivrtti, is probably from the 14th century and little is known about the author.

Scholars doubt Manusmriti was ever administered as law text in ancient or medieval Hindu society. David Buxbaum states, "in the opinion of the best contemporary orientalists, it [Manusmriti] does not, as a whole, represent a set of rules ever actually administered in Hindustan. It is in great part an ideal picture of that which, in the view of a Brahmin, ought to be law". Donald Davis writes, "there is no historical evidence for either an active propagation or implementation of Dharmasastra [Manusmriti] by a ruler or any state – as distinct from other forms of recognizing, respecting and using the text. Thinking of Dharmasastra as a legal code and of its authors as lawgivers is thus a serious misunderstanding of its history". Other scholars have expressed the same view, based on epigraphical, archaeological and textual evidence from medieval Hindu kingdoms in Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, while acknowledging that Manusmriti was influential to the South Asian history of law and was a theoretical resource.

The Dharma sastras, particularly Manusmriti, states Anthony Reid, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia and Java Bali (Indonesia) as the defining documents of the natural order, which kings were obliged to uphold. They were copied, translated and incorporated into local law code, with strict adherence to the original text in Burma and Siam, and a stronger tendency to adapt to local needs in Java (Indonesia)". The medieval era derived texts and Manusmriti manuscripts in Southeast Asia are, however, quite different than the "vulgate" version that has been in use since its first use in British India. The role of then extant Manusmriti as a historic foundation of law texts for the people of Southeast Asia has been very important, states Hooker.

Prior to the British colonial rule, Sharia (Islamic law) for Muslims in South Asia had been codified as Fatawa e Alamgiri, but laws for non Muslims – such as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis – were not codified both in regions of the subcontinent that witnessed anything up to 600 years of Islamic rule as well as others. With the arrival of the British colonial officials, Manusmriti played a historic role in constructing a legal system for non Muslims in South Asia and early Western perceptions about the ancient and medieval Indian society. The East India Company, and later the British Crown, sought profits for its British shareholders through trade as well as sought to maintain effective political control with minimal military engagement. The existing legal texts for Muslims, and resurrected Manusmriti manuscript thus helped the colonial state sustain the pre colonial religious and political law and conflicts, well into the late nineteenth century. For Muslims of India, the British accepted sharia as the legal code for Muslims, based on texts such the al Sirjjiyah and Fatawa i Alamgiri written under sponsorship of Aurangzeb. For Hindus and other non Muslims such as Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis, this information was unavailable. The British colonial officials, however, mistook the Manusmriti as codes of law, failing to recognise that it was a commentary on morals and law and not a statement of positive law. Abdullahi Ahmed An Na'im states the significance and role of Manusmriti in governing India during the colonial era as follows (abridged), According to Ghose and other scholars, evidence suggests that Yajnavalkya Smriti was the more referred to text than Manu Smriti in matters of governance and practice. This text, of unclear date of composition but likely to be a few centuries after Manusmriti, is more "concise, methodical, distilled and liberal". According to Jois,

Jois suggests that the Yajnavalkya Smriti text liberal evolution may have been influenced by Buddhism in ancient India.

The Manusmrti has been subject to appraisal and criticism. Among the notable Indian critics of the text in the early 20th century was B. R. Ambedkar, who held Manusmriti as responsible for caste system in India. In protest, Ambedkar burnt Manusmrti in a bonfire on 25 December 1927. While Ambedkar condemned Manusmriti, Mahatma Gandhi opposed the book burning. The latter stated that while caste discrimination was harmful to spiritual and national growth, it had nothing to do with Hinduism and its texts such as Manusmriti. Gandhi argued that the text recognises different callings and professions, defines not one's rights but one's duties, that all work from that of a teacher to a janitor are equally necessary, and of equal status. He recommended that one must read the entire text, accept those parts of Manusmriti which are consistent with "truth and ahimsa (non injury or non violence to others)" and the rejection of other parts. This interest in its translation was encouraged by British administrative requirements, which they believed to be legal codes. In fact, states Romila Thapar, these were not codes of law but social and ritual texts. A Louis Jacolliot translation of the Calcutta version of "Law of Manu" was reviewed by Friedrich Nietzsche. He commented on it both favourably and unfavorably:
He deemed it "an incomparably spiritual and superior work" to the Christian Bible, observed that "the sun shines on the whole book" and attributed its ethical perspective to "the noble classes, the philosophers and warriors, [who] stand above the mass". Nietzsche does not advocate a caste system, states David Conway, but endorses the political exclusion conveyed in the Manu text. Nietzsche considered Manu's social order as far from perfect, but considers the general idea of a caste system to be natural and right, and stated that "caste order, order of rank is just a formula for the supreme law of life itself", a "natural order, lawfulness par excellence". According to Nietzsche, states Julian Young, "Nature, not Manu, separates from each other: predominantly spiritual people, people characterized by muscular and temperamental strength, and a third group of people who are not distinguished in either way, the average". B. R. Ambedkar asserted that Manu Smriti was written by a sage named Brigu during the times of Pushyamitra of Shunga in connection with social pressures caused by the rise of Buddhism. However, historian Romila Thapar considers these claims to be exaggerations. Thapar writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra. Support of the Buddhist faith by the Shungas at some point is suggested by an epigraph on the gateway of Bharhut, which mentions its erection "during the supremacy of the Shungas". Pollard et al. state that the code of Manu was derived to answer questions on how men could rebuild their societies following a series of floods. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, held the text to be authentic and authoritative. Other admirers of the text have included Annie Besant. Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said "Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living."