Give a dog a bad name and hang him:

the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India

Meeta and Rajivlochan

This paper looks into the pitfalls that mar a simplistic book
view of Indian history. Minimally, such a view does extraordinary
violence to the texts of earlier times and gives an entirely
misleading picture of how Indian society was organised in the past.
That matter would not be worthy of comment but for the current
experience where there have been numerous times when a hack
understanding of history has been used to foment much discontent
within Indian society. Much of the common sense about India
prevailing in society is based on a version of Indian history that till
recently had been written on the basis of information obtained
from various originary texts and the movement from unguarded
history to historians repeating the prejudices of common society
appears to be seamless (Anand, 2005, p. 265). Whether such
history is good history or not remains a matter of debate. But the
practical implication of that has been that following upon such a
book view of history and the judgements based upon them much
historical information has passed into popular understandings
about our society and its past. Considering that in present times
history has emerged as one of the most socially and politically
contentious disciplines in India it would do well for historians and
others, who base themselves on originary texts to obtain legitimacy
for contemporary actions, to be a little cautious about the
information derived from the texts and their social and political
implications (J udgement, 2010).
How did some of our texts from an earlier period come to be
accepted as originary texts? For that we need to delve briefly into
the sociology of knowledge in India and trace quickly the context
in which pre-existing texts such as the Manu smriti were imposed
with an originary status in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The sociologist Satish Saberwal says that there are different ways
of ordering life in India and in Europe. In Europe the book and
what is written therein formed an important part of rules that
Published in History Perspectives, vol. I,
ed. M Rajivlochan, 2010.
Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


59
govern life. India is different. The most important difference being
that a texteven when it is prescriptive in its tone-- might often be
an expression of the hopes and aspirations of those drafting the text
rather than a guide for future action or a statement of contract in
current times. One of the implications of this was that when
Europeans tried to make sense of the society in India and its
history they sought to attribute far too much importance to the
written word, especially the words written in what they considered
to be originary documents for the society and culture of India. The
belief seemed to be that once such originary documents and rules
therein had been identified the mysterious manner in which India
and Indians functioned would be comprehended making it easier
for the imperial masters to control India (Saberwal, 1995: 68-95).
Much of the credit for popularising historical knowledge about
India goes to J ames Mill from the early nineteenth, someone who
actually never visited India and wrote his popular texts on history
on the basis of reports produced by other English and European
visitors to India. It was in the spirit of making India accessible to
historical interpretation that J ames Mill, one of the most significant
nineteenth century interpreters of India for the English observed
that India was essentially governed by the code of Menu (Manu).
In a separate note on what he perceived the importance of the
Manu smriti he would tell his readers that the most authentic
source of information, yet open to the research of the European
scholar, on the metaphysical, as on other ideas of the learned
Hindus, is the volume of the Institutions of Menu. Considering
that Mills book on India was to be the basis of much of the
understanding of Indian history till at least the middle of the
twentieth century it is safe to assume that the judgements made
therein had considerable influence over the manner in which India
was viewed by the English. In the eyes of J ames Mill writing in the
first decade of the nineteenth century, the Manu smriti already had
acquired a special place in understanding India. It was supposed to
contain all that was worth knowing about the manner in which the
people of India thought and acted. Mill assured his readers that
from the account which in this work is rendered of the origin of
the mind and its faculties, very sure conclusions may be drawn
Meeta and Rajivlochan

60
respecting the extent and accuracy of the psychological knowledge
of the people by whom that account is delivered and believed
(Mill, 1826: 2, p. 71).
Much of the knowledge Mill derived was from the commentary
on Manu produced by the orientalist William J ones. That
commentary itself, prepared in the 1790s became an important
document for the English to understand India. A translation of the
Manu smriti such as J ones had done was needed, J ones explained,
because, in his opinion it was the creation of the holiest of
legislators as far as the Hindus of India were concerned and
hence formed the basis of most of the other laws that governed the
Hindus (J ones, 1869, Third Edition, p. xii). This was a phrase
holiest of legislatorsthat would be repeated many times over
in the coming decades. The Manu smriti was well on its way to
acquiring the status of an originary text for India. Sir J ohn Shore,
the Governor General in 1794, recalled the efforts of William
J ones, how J ones had discovered in the course of his translation of
the Manu smriti that the smriti comprised of a system, of religious
and civil duties, and of law in all its branches, so comprehensiv
and minutely exact, tht it might be considered as the institutes of
Hindu law (Shore, 1798, p. 189).
The book remained central to the understanding of India in
many ways. The journal Asiatic Researches, the journal of the
Asiatick Society, which was started by William J ones in 1784 in
Kolkata, mentioned the Manu smriti as an authority on numerous
things. Essays in its fourth volume for example, published in 1798,
the Asiatic Researches referred to plant life in India using the
Manu smriti for some of the references (Asiatic Researches, 1798).
Mill himself had used the Manu smriti to comment upon the nature
of kingship in India and of the correct comportment in Indian
society. By 1869, when the third edition of William J ones
translation of the Manu smriti was brought out, the editor of the
new version could claim that the Manu smriti was one of the texts
which may be regarded as the sources of the respective native
systems (J ones, 1869, Third Edition, p. v).
During the same period Raja Rammohun Roy, known as one of
the earliest modern social reformers in India, too referred to Menu
(Manu) as the first and chief of all Hindoo lawgivers in order to
Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


61
make various arguments regarding society and religions of India
(Roy, 1832 , p. 160). At another place, arguing on the matter of
the sati tradition Roy would talk of the decisive sayings of Vishnu
and Manu, which allowed a widow either to practise auterities or to
ascend her husbands pyre and argue that there was no
compulsion within the laws of the Hindus for the widow to either
practise austerities or to ascend her husbands pyre (Collet, 2009,
1914, p. 140). By the mid-nineteenth century, however, Indian
social reformers were arguing that many of the social evils visiting
upon the country were the consequence of the injunctions in the
Manu smriti. Anagol, the historian of Indian feminism in the
nineteenth century, tells us that the feminist reformers from
western India in the nineteenth century were quite familiar with the
Manu smriti as familiar with the works of Macaulay, Edwin
Arnold and Goldsmith as with Manu and Kalidas (Anagol,
2005, p. 227). The feminist women of the nineteenth century, says
Anagol, agreed with the men in their assessment that the present
state of morality in India was in ruins. But, she adds, this was not
just because of unrealistic expectations from women, but also due
to the fact that men themselves were less than shining models of
exemplary conduct. Pandita Ramabai, an early convert to
Christianity and a social reformer in her own rights often remarked
on the condition of women and morality in India. In an early article
in the Cheltenham Ladies College Magazine in 1885 she referred
to the Manu smriti as establishing the basic constraints on Hindu
women to argue that the constraints on Indian women were a
consequence of the injunctions of the Manu smriti (Anagol, 2005,
p. 26). Even men, social reformers, like Lokhitavadi from
Maharashtra attributed the sad condition of Hindu widows to
injunctions from the Manu smriti (Keer, 1974 (1964), p. 84).
The Manu smriti would be equally reviled by those railing
against the inequalities imposed by the caste system. With the
aggressive stance taken by J otiba Phuley on social reform the
Manu smriti came to be seen even more as the source of originary
evil in Indian society. Phuleys exhortation to his followers were
quite clear. Follow me, falter not now,/Down with Manus
injunctions,/ Education imparts you happiness,/J oti tells you with
Meeta and Rajivlochan

62
confidence.// (Keer, 1974 (1964), p. 25) The Manusmriti now
came to be denounced as the unholy book of the Hindus which
prescribed much that was considered wrong in Indian society.
Slavery for the shudras, degradation of various sorts for women
and much else. Earlier Raja Rammohun Roy had already said that
the Manusmriti did not enjoin Hindu widows to immolate
themselves on the pyre of their hubands. At the turn of the century
commentators would notice that neither the Koran nor the
Manusmriti forbade women from voting yet there was considerable
opposition to the demand for the right to vote to women (Kidambi,
2007, p. 198). Yet, the oft repeated statement was that the
Manusmriti recommended that molten lead be poured into the ears
of a shudra who heard the vedas recited. The Manu smriti was well
on its way to becoming a much reviled document that held India
back from the path of modernity and equality. By the next century
the Manu smriti would be considered the basis of much that was
going wrong in India. On December 27, 1927 Babasaheb
Ambedkar and his followers burnt copies of the Manu smriti to
demonstrate the what they thought of this text.
How and why this transformation occurred is a matter of
conjecture. What is not is that by the nineteenth century the Manu
smriti was widely known as forming the basis of social and ethico-
moral norms for Hindu society. The originary status attributed to
the Manu smriti, we suspect, was of recent origin and the result of
a brahmanical over-reading of the Manu smriti during colonial
times, wherein the pundit often focussed on a single sloka, perhaps
removed from its context, intercalating meanings where none
might have been intended, or given the context, intended
differently (Avari, 2007, p. 142 ff.). The Manu smriti, given its
recognition as the originary law giver and its propensity to lay
down rules, obviously became important for law givers of colonial
times. We would suspend judgement on how far the Manu smriti
was important before the English became important in the justice
system of India. In other historical contexts too it has been shown
that what appears to be ancient and linked to memories from times
immemorial past can often be of rather recent origin (Hobsbawm,
1983). That allows us to suspect that the kind of primacy in rule
making that the Manu smriti seems to have acquired during the
Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


63
framing of what has come to be known as Hindu Family Law and
associated judgements about Indian social structure are of colonial
origin even when a cursory reading of the Manu smriti made it
clear that the text contained many mutually contradictory
statements (Tope, 1882, pp. 12, 49, 66 etc.). Given the
Englishmens overwhelming dependence on Brahmin pundits to
interpret Hindu texts, the interpretation available to the English
also happened to be overtly in favour of the Brahmins. Their
interpretations acquired a greater sense of correctness since the
Manu smriti itself had a propensity to highlight the role of
Brahmins in society and the importance of an alliance between
Brahmins and the king for ensuring good conduct in society. That
primacy to the Manu smriti continues to the present in many
circles. One of the more popular recent text books on the ethics in
Scotland for example mentions the Manu smriti as the centre piece
of ethicality in India (Minski, 1996).
Max Mueller, the Oxford based German Indologist had
cautioned in the late 1850s, that in order to come to a proper
understanding of the character of the Indian people one needed to
go beyond the literature written by Brahmins though he did ratify
the current understanding regarding the primacy of the Manu
smriti (Mueller, 1859, pp. 6, 89). Mostly such caution was wasted
since the Manu smriti continued to be used to justify many
contemporary actions and thoughts. The dalit activists of the
nineteenth century focussed on those passages from the Manu
smriti that justified atrocities against the dalits. The Brahman
activists, even those of the social reform variety from western
India, insisted that many of the rules of the Manu smriti were but
for the better working of society. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
for example, would quote the Manu smriti to strengthen the hands
of dharma. Follow your religion, he would quote the Manu
smriti approvingly, if anyone destroys his religion, that is to say,
disregards it, that religion will, without fail, destroy him. (Manu 8.
14-16) (Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1965 Saka)
The moot point of course was that as with many similar ancient
texts the Manu smriti too said many things, not all of them to
contemporary liking. For example it held that a Brahmin by birth
Meeta and Rajivlochan

64
was not necessarily a Brahmin from the ritualistic or juridical point
of view. There were, according to the Manu smriti, numerous
ways in which an otherwise correct, Veda chanting brahmin could
nullify his status, and even risk having his pitr lie in excreta for one
month should he commit certain categories of transgressions. Nor
was it necessary for one to be born of Brahmin parents in order to
achieve the status of a Brahmin. But such points of the Manu
smriti seem to have been underplayed in interpretations that have
been popular for some time now. This meant the Manu smriti was
subjected to stringent criticism by dalit activists and social
reformers like J otiba Phule. It also provided the basis for many of
the reconstructions of ancient Indian social history done by
historians. Perhaps it is time to say that in case texts such as the
Manu smriti are to be used for historical understanding then a
simpler and more comprehensive reading, highlighting the
contradictions within the texts, might result in a better
understanding of social mores and relations in the past. It could
also be that the code of Manu, as a code of social ethic and law, as
a definer of what is a just and good society, might have been far
less rigid, far more equitable, and far more respectful to women
than it has been made out. Implicitly it might mean that the society
for which this code was written was far more pliable and changing,
especially in its social and sexual mores, than has been presumed
by historians of India.
We suggest that it may be worthwhile to overlook the learned
commentaries on the Manu smriti
1
and conduct a simplistic
reading, to take the words of the smriti at face value. In fact the
smriti itself directs us to do so, that it, along with other Vedas and
dharma shastras, not be put to the test of logic [2.10].
2
It may also
be worthwhile, for starters, to take the smriti as a single text,
complete in itself, even though it is known that like many
analogous texts from ancient India this too has had a number of
additions made to it at different times and that the text itself is not
attributable to a single, even though mythical, author.

1
References are to the Manu smriti, Tr. M. N. Dutt, Chaukhamba Sanskrit
Pratishthan, Delhi, 1998
2

Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


65
I
Tradition has it that the sages wanted to know more about the
norms of good conduct the duties of all the [four] social orders, as
well as those of the members of the mixed castes and therefore
went to the sage Bhrigu. Bhrigu on his part narrated to them the
code which had been narrated to him by the great sage Manu.
Manu in his turn had been given this code by the originary
grandfather, Brahma, who after framing the code and giving it to
Manu, vanished [1.58]. In the process of narrating the duties of the
various varnas, samkara varnas and jatis it also discussed, as the
origin of all virtue, matters pertaining to: sacramental rites,
performance of vows, rules of ceremonial ablutions, visiting ones
wife, conditions and forms of marriage, performing yajnas,
shraddhas, description of professions, vows of snatakas, rules
regarding what to eat or not eat, purification of articles, females
and their ways of earning virtue, penance and associated
austerities, emancipation of the self, asceticism, duties of kings,
laws relating to money debt, mode of examining witnesses, duties
of wives and husbands, division of shares, laws of gambling,
punishment of thieves, duties of vaisyas and sudras and mixed
ones, duties in times of distress, performing expiatory penances,
rebirths according to the merits of three kinds of works, means of
self-emancipation, ascertaining goodness or badness of acts, duties
of citizenship, duties peculiar to the jati, duties towards family,
duties of pashandas [1.108, 1.110 passim.]. As we see can easily
see from what follows, from the contemporary perspective the
Manu smriti seems to be extraordinarily hostile to women.

II
The Manu smriti as it is currently extant has 12 chapters and a
total 2685 slokas of which about 200 mention women. In other
words, women are not its main focus. Dharma, duty and purity of
society as depicted in the varna and jati order are; as also are men
as agents of the social order. Varna and jati, the Manu smriti seems
to use them as mutually inclusive terms. Women become its
subject only insofar as they are important for creating more men
and ensuring that many of the rituals which presumably predate the
Meeta and Rajivlochan

66
Manu smriti and are mentioned in the Vedas, require the presence
of a woman, the wife, as a consociate of a man, the husband and
householder.
Women did not have a role to play in the procreation of the
world which was attributed to a grandfather divinity which had
emerged from the divine, golden egg [1.01 1.50]. In fact in the
entire description of the creation of the world women, nari, gets
mentioned only once [1.32]. But once the world is created she
comes into her own, especially in her role in serving the interests
of her husband. Looking after the household and providing
progeny.
So far as her role in other areas of life is concerned, the Manu
smriti has some interesting things to say especially in the chapters
concerning distribution of property and sanctions against crime or
violations of dharma. Women like sudras or animals are to be kept
away from the Vedic sacraments (9.18). A woman it is said cannot
be responsible for her own self and she does not deserve
independence: the father protects her in infancy, the husband in
youth and the son in old age (9.3). Rather she is seen as an object
of ownership viz.: that enjoyment of a mortgaged articleor of a
woman does not extinguish the right of ownership (8.149).
3

Parallels between women, infants and old men are drawn at
some places in the text (9.230).
4
Ch 8.70 says that only in the
absence of other evidence can women, infants, and old men,
disciples, friends, slaves or servants bear testimony. Again it is
said that a single, non-avaricious male witness is competent for
testifying to a fact while a host of virtuous women cannot be
regarded as competent witnesses owing to the fickleness of the
female temperament (8.77). In contemporary times one need not
go too far to see how such statements would be indicative of all
that the critics of the Manu smriti said was bad about it. There is
more of the same to come as one proceeds with reading the Manu
smriti.

3
: : :

4

Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


67
A woman could not own property (8.416) although it is
maintained that widows and unmarried daughters are entitled to a
share in the husband and fathers property respectively.
All these verses suggest what has been pointed out many times
before: that woman in the Manu smriti is not assigned any
responsibility for maintaining the social order or for ensuring
compliance with dharma. That is the task of men. However given
that, women are to be respected. They are essentially home makers
and the pillars of the household.
At the same time, women are also referred to as fickle,
irresponsible creatures and the potential of a woman for deviating
from the correct and virtuous path was also considered a serious
problem, especially the fear of her potential to bear the progeny of
someone other than her husband. That would result in Varna
samkara progeny, allowing for the possibility of the destruction of
the pristine social order important for the well-being of all.
Therefore the Manu smriti spent considerable effort in cautioning
men about the unbridled sexuality of all women, the need to
control it by keeping wives happy as also of warning the men that
begetting sons onto someone elses wife would not obtain any
merit for them since that off-spring would not be their son but the
son, of the legitimate husband. A woman who had gone with
another man could be brought back to the fold, her purification,
done without the use of Vedic mantras since women had to be kept
away from the Vedas, by stating her transgression and bringing her
back to her lord. Faithless to her lord, used to stroll about in quest
of other men, may my father purify her ovum, defiled by her
intercourse with others [9.20]. But it was important to maintain
the family as a contented structure, for it was only a contented
family which could perform its duties to the satisfaction of the
code of duties.
In the world that is the subject of the Manu smriti studying the
Vedas was supposed to be the key to acquiring knowledge about
right conduct. For women this was done through serving their
husbands well. The Manu smriti goes on to establish the
importance of studying Vedas in the proper manner, by being
properly initiated [2.36 2. 69]. Such initiation, however, was to
Meeta and Rajivlochan

68
be limited to the young men of the twice-born castes. Women were
not allowed to be initiated into the learning of the Vedas. For a
woman, irrespective of her caste, initiation into the learning of the
Vedas was not considered proper. Instead the sacrament of
marriage, it was said, is to a woman the equivalent of a vedic
samskara and that service to the husband would get her the same
merit as obtained by a brahmacharin in service of his guru [2.67].
5

Yet, later on the woman, in her role of a wife, would play the role
of a consociate in various Vedic rituals performed by her husband.
But on her own, whether for purification or for performing rites,
women, like sudras and animals, would have to be kept away from
vedic sacraments. Why? No reason has been given in the text
itself. It just presumed to be so. One of those key presumptions, on
the basis of which the society according to Manu, existed.
The novitiate was given detailed instructions about the modes
of study, personal conduct, relationship with others etc. he was
also specifically instructed on his conduct towards women. It
would be women of the house from whom he would be asking for
alms, the men having gone for work. He was to beg his first alms
from women who would not insult him with a refusal, be polite to
various wives, including that of the guru, and yet being careful of
their sexual charm [2.212]. For, as the smriti was to warn the
brahmacharin, it was in the nature of women to defile men. Man,
by nature, is subject to lust and anger, women are quite competent
to lead even the wise men astray, not to speak of fools [2.215].
Later on the smriti would further warn that even sisters, mothers
and other close female relatives, let alone wives and wives of
others, were liable to lead men astray on a sexual way. One shall
not reside in a solitary place even with his own mother, sister or
daughter. Powerful are the passions of a man, and they sometimes
overwhelm even the wise [2.215]. There would be more said
about the predatory sexuality of women if only to establish, from
the present point of view, the deep misogynism that marked the
Manu smriti.


5


Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


69
III
But despite all this the women of the house had to be treated
specially. It is said that it is only with his wife and progeny that a
man becomes complete (9.45). Wives cannot be kept by force
(9.10). They should be honoured (9.26) and even if a wife of good
conduct falls ill, the husband can remarry only with her consent
(9.82). Marriage is important for women but nevertheless it is said
that it is better for a girl to stay unmarried in her fathers house
rather than that she marry an ineligible husband (9.89).
A large number of passages warned against the purchase of a
bride or the payment of a bride price while a few even warned
against accepting too many gifts from the father of the bride at the
time of marriage. In what way, one begins to wonder did this
amount to payment of dowry as some social historians have. For it
was clearly stated that the payment of bride price resulted in an
inauspicious marriage while the demand for a bride price earned
the father considerable demerits and in any case forced gifts, those
not begotten through love and affection, were to be avoided at all
costs at the risk of incurring demerits [3.51 etc.].
While much emphasis was laid on the purity of girls and
chastity of women as much provision was made for integrating the
contrary within normal society as well. Normally a newlywed
bride was presumed to be a virgin. But a girl who was not a virgin
too be given as a bride after informing the husband so that he could
adjust the bride price paid accordingly. Provision was made for the
marriage of one who was pregnant as well [8.205 8.225]. It was
just that different mantras had to be recited to consecrate the
marriage of a virgin and a pregnant bride [8.226].
The family remained crucial to the well-being of the society.
A family where the husband and wife are both contended is
continuously blessed [3.60], the Manu smriti would say. The
contentment of the wife was all the more important since otherwise
it feared there would be no progeny [3.61]. Notice, the careful
choice of words: progeny, not son. Anyway, a bad marriage,
it was counselled, destroys the family in the same way as done by
the non-study of the Vedas, extinction of religious ceremonies
within the family and insulting a brahmin [3.66].
Meeta and Rajivlochan

70
It was for the men of the house to ensure good conduct on part
of the women. Condemnable is a father who does not marry his
daughter at the proper age, a husband who does not have sex with
his wife, a son who does not protect his mother [9.4]. In such a
situation the women could find their own way. Even weak and
diseased husbands were enjoined to protect their wives from
bad company [9.4 to 9.6]. For, it was explained, it is by
entering the body of the wife the husband is born again and since
the wife gives birth to a child in all respects to the husband, he
should ensure that only he enters the wife and none else [9.8, 9.9]
The protection follows the nature of women [9.14]. Women,
it was explained, were created to beget children and sought them
from whatever source possible to them, and men were created to
impregnate them [9.17 9.19]. They do not care for personal
beauty or young age, women always look for sexual intercourse
[9.15] their erotic fantasies are excited at the mere sight of men
and therefore they indulge in transgressions against their husbands
[9.16] it is this nature with which prajapati created women [9.16]
and therefore let a man protect his women to the best of his
endeavours. While here was enough ammunition to launch a
frontal attack on the Manu smriti in contemporary times, there
were enough contrary statements too to come.
It was also stated that a wife could not be kept by force [9.10]
and therefore a variety of stratagems had to be used: employ her in
storing and spending money, in maintaining cleanliness and the
house, in looking after bedding, clothes, furniture. Mere
imprisonment in the house and closely guarding her is not enough,
best to have her guard herself but that she would do only if she is
happy. Keep her away from wine drinking, bad company,
separation, idle dreaming, and residence in anothers house since
they all corrupt a woman [9.11 9.13]. Much had been said in the
Manu smriti on taking care of atithis, guests [3.94 to 3.111]. While
it was enjoined upon a householder to take care of an atithi it was
also said that this was not be done at the cost of the women of the
Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


71
house, including the newly married daughters, daughters in-law,
pregnant women, infants and sick folks. Only the master of the
house and the mistress needed to wait upon the atithi [3.116].
Within a family the women were the repositories of goodness
and therefore needed to be treated with care. The gods only lived
in a family, it was said, where women were treated with respect.
Everything is fruitless where women are dishonoured [3.56] and
all prosperity is destroyed [3.57]. A house where daughters,
daughters in-law, sisters and other women suffer is like a house
suffering from evil demons [3.58]. The killing of a woman was
considered as bad as the killing of a Brahmin or an infant and
ensured that the killer would go to hell after death [8.81]. The
husband and in-laws were enjoined to maintain her with a
respectful love and give her ornaments for the decoration of her
person [3.55]. While women were not allowed to possess any
property it was also ordained that evil are those friends and
relations who live on the stree dhana. Should they do so they have
adhogati (the worst of downfalls possible) [3.52].
6

All the above would seem to indicate that in the world of the
Manu smriti, while women were not regarded as conscientious and
independent agents of responsible action in the moral universe,
they nevertheless had an important role in society as wives and
mothers and in this capacity they were not only to be respected,
they had some rights too which the Manu smriti defined. If the
commentators on the Manu smriti in the nineteenth and twentieth
century chose to be highly selective in their use of the Manu smriti
it only created a false impression of the kind of society that the
Manu smriti represented. Perhaps it is important for the historian,
if not for the political activist, to be accurate and comprehensive in

6


Meeta and Rajivlochan

72
selecting for evidence material from the past as also reporting upon
the past without hiding any contrary evidence.
Bibliography

Anagol, P. (2005). The emergence of feminism in India, 1850-1920.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Anand, M. (Ed.). (2005). Dalit women: fear and discrimination. New
Delhi: Isha Books.
Asiatic Researches, v. 4. (1798). Asiatic Researches: dissertations and
miscellaneous pieces, relating to the history and antiquities, the arts,
sciences and letters, of Asia vol. 4. Calcutta: Asiatick Society.
Avari, B. (2007). India, the ancient past: a history of the Indian
subcontinent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200. New York: Routledge.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, B. S. (1965 Saka). The Hindu philosophy of life,
ethics and religion. Pune: Tilak Brothers.
Collet, S. D. (2009, 1914). The life and letters of Raja Rammohun Roy.
New Delhi: General Books.
Manu Smriti (Vrajajivan Indological Studies ed.). (1998). (M. N. Dutt,
Trans.) Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.
Gilmore, D. G. (2001). Misogyny: the male malady. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hobsbawm, T. R. (1983). The invention of tradition. (E. A. Ranger, Ed.)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J ones, W. (1869, Third Edition). Institutes of Hindu law or chronicles of
Menu according to the gloss of Culluca comprising the Indian system
of duties , religious and civil, verbally ranslated from the original.
London: W H Allen and Co. .
J udgement, H. C. (2010). Judgement of the Allahabad High Court on the
Ramjanmbhoomi issue. Lucknow: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/ accessed
on 6th October 2010.
Keer, D. (1974 (1964)). Mahatam Jotirao Phooley: father of Indian
social revolution. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Kidambi, P. (2007). The Makiing of an Indian metropolis: colonial
governance and public culture in Bombay, 1890-1920. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Mill, J . (1826). History British India vol. II. London: Baldwin, Cradock
and J oy.
Give a dog a bad name and hang him:
the case of the Manusmriti and Women in India


73
Minski, W. (1996). Hinduism. In P. M. Lawton (Ed.), Ethical issues in six
religious traditions (second edition ed., pp. 1-9). Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Mueller, M. (1859). A history of ancient Sanskrit literature so far as it
illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans. London: Williams
and Norgate.
Roy, R. R. (1832 ). A second defence of the monotheistical system of the
Veds; in reply to An apology for the present State of Hindoo worship.
In R. R. Roy, Translation of several principal books, passages and
texts: the veds, and of some controversial works on Brahmunical
theology (pp. 153-190). London: Parbury, Allen and Co.
Saberwal, S. (1995). Wages of segmentation. New Delhi: Sage.
Shore, J . (1798). A discourse delivered at a meeting of the Asiatic
Society, on the 22nd of May 1794. Asiatick Research .
Tope, T. K. (1882). Hindu family law and social change: Dr. P B
Ganjendragadkar endowment lectures. Bombay: Bombay University.