Jtdcftul

Is the Manusmriti written by casteist Brahmins who wanted to oppress Shudras?

Critics say the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, and written by casteist Brahmins with the goal of oppressing Shudras, women, and other lower castes.

Is this argument valid?

Is the Manusmriti pro-Brahmin and written by casteist Brahmins to oppress Shudras?

No, because upon a closer look at the Manusmriti, it's intention is to secure the welfare of all living beings.

If the Manusmriti is pro-Brahmin, then how could it have verses like this?

8.102 - ‘He shall treat like Śūdras the Brāhmaṇas who tend cattle, who engage in trade, and who are craftsmen, actors, menial servants ok money-lenders.’

2.103 - But he who does not stand during the morning-twilight, and who does not sit through the evening-twilight, should be excluded, like the Sūdra, from all that is due to twice-born persons.

11.90 - A twice-born person, having, through folly, drunk wine, shall drink wine red-hot; he becomes freed from his guilt, when his body has been completely burnt by it.

Gautama (23.1).—‘They shall pour hot wine into the mouth of a Brāhmaṇa who has drunk wine; he will be purified by death.’

Baudhāyana (2.1.18, 19, 21).—‘If he [a Brahmana] has drunk Surā he shall scald himself to death with hot wine.

3.133 - As many mouthfuls as the person [Brahmana] ignorant of the Veda swallows out of the offerings to gods and Pitṛs [at a Sraddha], so many flaming spikes, spears and iron-balls does the man swallow after death.

Hārīta (Do.).—‘Even those born of noble families and endowed with learning,—if they be of base conduct and addicted to wicked deeds,—they are even regarded as demons. Those addicted to the killing of birds, fish and deer, serpents and tortoise and other animals are all Bad Brāhmaṇas. Who serves a Śūdra, who is supported by the King, the village-sacrificer, those living by killing and capturing—these six are Low Brāhmaṇas.’

5.19 - The mushroom, the village-pig, garlic, the village-cock, onions and leeks,—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.

5.53 - In normal times the twice-born man conversant with the law shall not eat meat unlawfully; having eaten it unlawfully, he shall, after death, be devoured by them helplessly.

5.35 - But when invited according to law, if a man [Brahmana] does not e at meat, he becomes, after death, a beast, during twenty-one births.

And many more verses. Of course, there are many verses praising Brahmanas, but as shown above, there are many verses deprecating bad Brahmanas. So, how can anti-Hindus cherry pick certain verses and portray the Manusmriti as pro-Brahmin? That is unfair, biased, and illogical.

Now let's address another related criticism.

Is the Manusmriti anti-low caste?

No it is not. Dharma is conducive to one's welfare. According to Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutra 1.1.2:

Dharma is that which is indicated by the Veda as conducive to the highest good.

Therefore, how can anyone say that Dharma is wrong or evil?

Here is the Dharma of Shudras:

9.334 - For the Śūdra the highest duty conducive to his best welfare is to attend upon such Brāhmaṇa house-holders as are learned
in the Vedas and famous.

9.335 - If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the
Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’

Why should Shudras serve Brahmanas aside from it being there primary duty? Because according to the Mahabharata:

Mahābhārata—Anuśāsana (Do.).—‘Finding the Śūdra oppressed with bad
traits due to the quality of Tamas, Pitāmaha ordained attendance upon
the twice-born as his duty. Through his devotion to the twice-born,
the Śūdra drops off all those traits due to the quality of Tamas; and
by attending upon the twice-born, the Śūdra attains the highest
good.—Harmless, devoted to good deeds, worshipful towards gods and the
twice-born, the Śūdra becomes endowed with all the rewards of Dharma.’

Shudras are in fact, oppressed by the quality of Tamas, and not by serving Brahmanas! It is by serving Brahmanas that Shudras become Sattvic, and so are no longer oppressed!

Also, some rights given to Shudras that higher castes don't have:

2.23 - But the region where the spotted deer roams by nature is to be known as the ‘land fit for sacrificial acts’; beyond that is the ‘land of the Mlecchas.

2.24 - The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries [where the spotted deer roams by nature]; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.

10.126 - For the Śūdra there is no sin; nor is he worthy of any sacraments; he is not entitled to any sacred rites; but there is no prohibition against sacred rites.

10.127 - If those [Shudras] who, knowing their duty, and wishing to acquire merit, imitate the practices of righteous men, with the exception of reciting the sacred texts, they incur no guilt; they obtain praise.

11.93 - Wine [Sura] indeed is the dirty refuse of grains, and sin also is called ‘dirt’; for this reason the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya shall not drink wine [but the Shudra can].

Yes, it appears so. This is what Patrick Olivelle says in the Introduction to his translation of Manusmṛti (a.k.a Mānava-Dharmaśāstra):

Reading the MDh one cannot fail to see and to feel the intensity
and urgency with which the author defends Brahmanical privilege.
A major aim of Manu was to re-establish the old alliance between
priesthood and royalty, an alliance that in his view would benefit
both the Brahmin and the king, thereby re-establishing the Brahmin
in his unique and privileged position within society. We hear the
repeated emphasis on the inviolability of the Brahmin in his person
and in his property. He has immunity from the death penalty, from
taxes, and from the confiscation of his property.

The king is advised
repeatedly that a Brahmin's property is poison. Stealing a Brahmin's
gold is one of the five grievous sins, and the death penalty is imposed
on the perpetrator. Devotion to Brahmins is a cardinal virtue of
kings: 'Refusal to turn back in battle, protecting the subjects, and
obedient service to Brahmins—for kings, these are the best means of
securing happiness' (7.88). The reason why foreign ruling classes,
such as the Greeks, Śākas, Persians, and Chinese, have fallen to the
level of Śūdras, once again, is their lack of devotion to Brahmins: 'By neglecting rites and by failing to visit Brahmins, however, these men of Kṣatriya birth have gradually reached in the world the level of Śūdras' (10.43).

The Brahmanical privilege is threatened from two quarters: the
Śūdra, within which class Manu often lumps all the lower classes of
society, and the Mleccha (foreigner, barbarian). Now, it is true that
even the Dharmasūtras contain passages that are anti-Śūdra. It is
taken for granted that the sole duty of Śūdras is to serve the upper
classes; penalties for killing a Śūdra are much less than for killing
people of the upper classes; likewise, penalties are increased for
guilty Śūdras; the list could go on. Yet we also see that Śūdras acted
as cooks in Brahmin households Āpastamba (2.29.11-15) even says
that one may learn aspects of the Law (dharma) from Śūdras. There
is a virulence in Manu's rhetoric vis-a-vis Śūdras lacking in the
Dharmasūtras that appears to indicate that there must be a subtext to
it. How could the lowest class of society with little access to material
resources pose such a threat to social order and to Brahmanical
hegemony? The fear of the Śūdra contrasts sharply with Manu's
view of Vaiśyas. These are dealt with in a dispassionate and straightforward way. Why were Vaiśyas, who are depicted as agriculturalists
and traders, that is, people with resources, not a threat to the Brahmin-Kṣatriya alliance that Manu was attempting to forge and strengthen? At one level, I think, historical memory is at work here;
Śūdras were once in power and posed a real threat to Brahmanical
hegemony, and history can always repeat itself.

Beyond that, however, 'Śūdra' for Manu is often a code word; it
identifies the enemy and it encompasses a wide cross-section of society, both past and present. It evoked the memories of bad old days; it
heightened the anxiety that what happened under the Mauryas
could be repeated. I also think that there was a contemporary threat
to Brahmanical supremacy not so much from political power but
from rival religious establishments, especially the Buddhist and the
Jain monastic orders. I think Manu includes these within his code
'Śūdra'. The connection between Śūdra and the non-Brahmanical
ascetic sects is drawn by Manu himself. In his advice regarding a
Brahmin's residence, Manu (4.61) says: 'He should not live in a
kingdom ruled by a Śūdra, teeming with unrighteous people, overrun by heretical ascetics, or swamped by lowest-born people.' Here
we have a clear juxtaposition between a kingdom ruled by a Śūdra king and a region populated by heretical ascetics (principally, Buddhists and Jains), by lowest-born people, and by unrighteous men.

Indeed, Manu's instruction (9.225) to the king about cleansing his
kingdom of dangerous people includes men who belong to heretical
sects. The strength of Buddhism in the north-western regions during this period and the patronage offered to them by what for Manu were Mleccha (foreign, barbarian) kings may also have influenced the
connection between heretic and Śūdra/Mleccha.

Alongside Śūdras, we have the Mlecchas. Manu is cognizant of
the regions occupied by the foreign barbarians, for at 2.23 he defines
the areas outside the central Aryavarta as the region of Mlecchas.
Manu, however, does not have much to say about the Mlecchas in the
rest of the book; his focus is on the Śūdras. Or, is the code 'Śūdra'
meant also to encompass these other outsiders as well?

Note that at 10.44 Manu presents the Mleccha groups such as Greeks, Śākas, and
Chinese as sunk to the level of Śūdras, although they were Kṣatriyas by birth.

The ideology that drives Manu explains the plan of his book. He
devotes 1,034 verses (38.6 per cent) to the discussion of the Brahmin
and 971 verses (36 per cent) to matters relating to the king; these two
take up three-quarters of the entire text.

Manu's agenda is twofold:

• he wants to tell Brahmins how to behave as true Brahmins devoted to Vedic learning and virtue, and


• he wants to tell kings how to behave as true kings, devoted to Brahmins and ruling the people justly.

For this agenda he brings the authority of no less a person than the Creator
himself, who is presented as the absent author of the text.