08-24-2004, 09:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Aug 23 2004, 01:01 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Aug 23 2004, 01:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Nobody criticizes hammurabi for not being modern enough in his outlook. It is expected that the laws he devised were meant for his age and less so for today. But the secularist brigade do not give the benefit to Manusmrti They expect the laws of manu to conform to the laws and mores of today. Forget about praising Manu for being the earliest Law giver known to the homos apiens species, it is hard to find a writer Indian or otherwise saying anything remotely complementary to Manu.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely that is what I learnt over time. In India the textbooks went on and on about Manu's injustice to women and slaves. But even that is selective quotation for the same Manusmriti administers just views on women and slaves. The feminist Kishwar had pointed out that Manu was not in vogue recently and was not an authoritative text. I think there is a right and wrong point here. Manu, was definitely considered a great hoary authority by the Hindus, but the Smriti was hardly practiced to the dot on the i or the stroke on the t. It was a general guideline and already a historical text of law with interpolations. Manu's contributions could be easily viewed as a production of those times, had the secularist not forced it down as the contemporary Hindu belief in need for condemnation. Do we see the US raking up the muck in the laws of Hammurabi or Maimonides? No, instead the general view of them is that of great historic law givers and they are depicted in the US court room. Likewise with Manu for us.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely that is what I learnt over time. In India the textbooks went on and on about Manu's injustice to women and slaves. But even that is selective quotation for the same Manusmriti administers just views on women and slaves. The feminist Kishwar had pointed out that Manu was not in vogue recently and was not an authoritative text. I think there is a right and wrong point here. Manu, was definitely considered a great hoary authority by the Hindus, but the Smriti was hardly practiced to the dot on the i or the stroke on the t. It was a general guideline and already a historical text of law with interpolations. Manu's contributions could be easily viewed as a production of those times, had the secularist not forced it down as the contemporary Hindu belief in need for condemnation. Do we see the US raking up the muck in the laws of Hammurabi or Maimonides? No, instead the general view of them is that of great historic law givers and they are depicted in the US court room. Likewise with Manu for us.