BUHLER DROWNS HIMSELF AFTER FAKE DISCOVERIES

Alois Anton Furer's Fake Buddha Discoveries

Georg Buhler (1837-1898), the German scholar who translated Manusmriti, drowned in Lake Constance, on 8 April 1898, under mysterious circumstances. He supposedly committed suicide after his pupil Alois Anton Führer's fake archaeological discoveries in India. Buhler had generously endorsed Führer's fake "discoveries", and Fuhrer had plagiarised Buhler's documents.

Lake Constance, where Buhler committed suicide, refers to three bodies of water on the Rhine at the northern foot of the Alps: Upper Lake Constance, Lower Lake Constance, and a connecting stretch of the Rhine called the Lake Rhine. These water bodies lie within the Lake Constance Basin in the Alpine Foreland through which the Rhine flows. The lake is situated where Germany, Switzerland, and Austria meet. Its shorelines lie in the German states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria, the Swiss cantons of St. Gallen, Thurgau, and Schaffhausen, and the Austrian state of Vorarlberg.

Contemporary accounts mostly attributed Buhler's drowning to an accident. An obituary of him by Austrian Indologist Moritz Winternitz, "Georg Buhler in Memoriam" states that "while enjoying alone in a small boat a beautiful evening on the Lake of Constance, he seems to have lost an oar, and in trying to recover it, to have overbalanced himself". But it has been speculated that it was a suicide motivated by Bühler's connections to a scandal involving his former student Alois Anton Führer. (1) Führer (1853 – 1930) was a German Indologist who worked for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). (2) He is known for his archaeological excavations, which he believed proved that Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal. (3) Führer's archaeological career ended in disgrace as "a forger and dealer in fake antiquities", and he had to resign from his position in 1898. (4)

Buhler

On that fateful day, Buhler was travelling from Vienna to Zurich, to spend the Easter vacation with his wife and son, who were staying there with relatives. He left Vienna on 5 April and broke his journey at Lindau in Lake Constance. According to Winternitz, he was probably tempted by the fine weather and wanted to enjoy roaring before proceeding to Zurich. (5) On the 7th, after rowing with a small hired boat, he returned to the hotel. On the next day, he hired the same boat to take another trip. He was last seen at about 7 pm. The next day the boat was found floating bottom upwards on the lake. Buhler had not informed his wife about the travel, which is suspicious.

T A Phleps, who wrote, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, raised the question of whether it was an accident. (6) British Writer Charles Allen opined that Buhler must have committed suicide considering possible defamation for upholding and publishing forged material, particularly related to the "discovery" of Buddha's birthplace. During the last years of his life, Buhler was connected to Alois Anton Führer, an archaeologist in the Archaeological Survey of India. Führer, who joined the ASI in 1885, "was engaged in plagiarism since 1882, the nature of which not only escaped the notice of many scholars but on the contrary, they considered it as a work of serious scholarship."(7)

Führer was born in Limburg an der Lahn, Germany, into a Catholic family. He studied Roman Catholic theology and Oriental studies at the University of Würzburg, was ordained in 1878 and received his PhD in 1879. His Sanskrit lecturer, Julius Jolly, was associated with the Bombay School of Indology. Probably due to him, he was appointed as a teacher of Sanskrit at St Xavier's Institute in Bombay. (8)

Julius Jolly (1849 – 1932) was a German scholar and translator of Indian law and medicine. Born in Heidelberg, the son of physicist Philipp Johann Gustav von Jolly (1809–1884), Jolly studied comparative linguistics, Sanskrit, and Iranian languages in Berlin and Leipzig.  Jolly became a Professor at the University of Würzburg in 1877, in the fields of comparative linguistics and Sanskrit. In 1882–1883 he visited India as Tagore professor of law, Calcutta, where he gave twelve lectures later published as Outlines of a History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption (1885).

In 1896, Jolly contributed to Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopedia of Indo-Aryan Research), later revised by Jolly and in 1928 translated by Balakrishna Ghosh, under the title Hindu Law and Custom. In this volume, Jolly discussed family law and heirship, the law of things and obligations, offences and penalties, court procedures, customs and traditions. In 1901 he also contributed a study of Indian medicine, still considered one of the most complete studies of the history of Indian medical literature.

Jolly edited the law books of Vishnu, Narada, and Manu, and translated the first two for the Sacred Books of the East (Vol. 7, The Institutes of Visnu, 1880; and Vol. 33, The Minor Law-Books: Brihaspati, 1889). He retired in 1922, when he became co-editor of the Journal of Indian History, but continued to give lectures in Würzburg till 1928. He published a new critical edition of Kautilya's Arthashastra in collaboration with R. Schmidt in the Panjab Sanskrit Series, 1923–1924.

Following Jolly's footprints, in 1882, Führer was able to publish two lectures about Hindu Law in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. (9) The lectures were entirely plagiarized from earlier works: only about one-tenth of the content is his own. (10) Führer left the Catholic Church around 1884 and converted to Anglicanism which cost him his job; he returned to Germany, from where he applied for a new job in the museum in Lucknow in India. (11)

Führer came back to India in 1885 and on his arrival, Alfred Comyn Lyall appointed him Curator of the Lucknow Provincial Museum. Führer immediately set about improving the museum. Impressed by the changes, Lyall, the Chair of the Museum's Management Committee, wrote to Calcutta asking whether a part-time job for Führer could be found with the Archaeological Survey of India. (12) He thus came to hold a double appointment, one as Curator at the museum and the other as Archaeological Surveyor to the North-Western Provinces. He was part of the N-W.P. and Oudh Circle of the Archaeological Survey. (13)

In 1886, the turning point came: Führer was instructed by the government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh and the Government of India to carry out an expedition to Nepal. (14)

But, from 1888, there was severe lobbying aimed at reducing Government expenses and curtailing the budget of the Archaeological Survey of India, a period of about ten years known as the "Buck crisis", after the Liberal Edward Buck. (15) In effect, this severely threatened the employment of the employees of the ASI, including Führer, who had just started a family and become a father. (16) These existential threats to his livelihood may have become "a motive for misbehaviour" on the part of Führer. Buck announced in 1892 that the Archaeological Survey of India would be shut down and all ASI staff would be dismissed by 1895, to generate savings for the Government's budget. (17) The prospect of being fired may have prompted Führer to act recklessly with his discoveries in a desperate attempt to avoid that fate. He may have thought a great discovery within the next three years might be able to turn public opinion and save the funding of the ASI. (18)

So, in 1891, Führer started excavations at the Ramnagar site of Ahichchhatra. (19) The excavations were quite disappointing. (20) Pressured by the need to get results, Führer started to report invented discoveries, such as ancient dated inscriptions that never existed, and non-existent Jain inscriptions. (21) German Indologist Heinrich Lüders would later be able to show that the supposed Jain inscriptions were fakes compiled from earlier real inscriptions found in Mathura. (22) In 1912 Lüders summarized "As all statements about epigraphical finds that admit of verification have proved to be false, it is very likely that no inscriptions at all have turned up". (23)

Führer also went to Sanchi during the 1891–1892 season and recovered tens of unpublished donative inscriptions, but these could not have the impact he hoped for. (24) Only a new inscription by King Ashoka achieved sufficient impact on public opinion. (25)

Führer carried out very successful excavations at the Kankali Tila site of Mathura between 1889 and 1891 which improved his understanding of the history of Jainism and gained him a reputation "as the most successful of the professional excavators".(26) Still, Führer's reports continued to be the result of extensive plagiarization, taking especially from the work of his superior Georg Bühler at that time, although this is not clear-cut and may only be the result of intensive cooperation between the two. (27) Führer's reports are also noted for being particularly vague and lacking details. (28)

Fuhrer

In 1912, Lüders identified in the Lucknow Provincial Museum forged inscriptions in Brahmi on artefacts belonging to Führer's excavations at Mathura and Ramnagar, forgeries which he attributed to Führer himself. (29) Some of the forged inscriptions were direct copies of inscriptions on other objects, previously published in Epigraphia Indica. (30)

Führer was on a survey tour to Burma, in 1893–1894. In 1894, he declared a "'path-breaking discovery" of three ancient Gupta inscriptions he said he found at Pagan and Tagaung in Burma. The "discovery" pushed back the epigraphical knowledge of interactions with India by close to six centuries, generating huge acclaim. (31) He published the "discovery" in his Progress Reports of the Epigraphical Section in the Working Season of 1893–94. He elaborated a description of the inscriptions he had supposedly found, without ever producing a drawing or a photographic proof, although he had a draftsman and a photographer with him on the expedition. (32) Large extracts of his report were reproduced in The Indian Antiquary Vol-xxiv (1895). (33) His "discovery" was taken at face value, and its conclusions were repeated by many scholarly works such as the Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States in 1900, before being adopted by popular works as well: "By the early 1900s, anyone with an interest in the archaeology of Burma had ample opportunity to read about the Gupta inscriptions in Fuhrer's own words". (34)

It was only uncovered many years later that the inscriptions were actually inexistent, a fact revealed openly by Charles Duroiselle in 1921: "This Sanskrit inscription never existed, but was invented in toto by Dr Fuhrer while on a tour in Burma". (35) Source analysis shows that he imagined the content of these inscriptions by basing himself on older publications and a list of kings from the Indian Hatthipala Jataka. (36) These events marked "a scandalous career of forgery which would some years later, come to an end in Kapilavastu". (37)

The Nigali Sagar pillar (also called the "Nigliva" pillar) of Ashoka, initially discovered by a Nepalese officer on a hunting expedition in 1893, (38) was inspected by Furer in March 1895, and he also "identified" a Brahmi inscription said to be from the time of Ashoka. (39)Besides, Führer made a detailed description of the remains of a monumental "Konagamana stupa" near the Nigali Sagar pillar, (40) which was later discovered to be an imaginative construct. (41) Fuhrer wrote that "On all sides around this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures" when actually nothing can be found around the pillar. (42) In the following years, inspections of the site showed that there were no such archaeological remains. Every word of Führer's description was false. (43) It was finally understood in 1901 that Führer had copied almost word-for-word this description from a report by Alexander Cunningham about the stupas in Sanchi. (44)

The announcement of these great "discoveries" succeeded in bringing the "Buck Crisis" to an end, and the ASI was finally allowed in June 1895 to continue operations, subject to yearly approval based on successful digs every year. (45) Georg Bühler, writing in July 1895 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, continued to advocate for the preservation of the ASI, and expressed that what was needed were "new authentic documents" from the pre-Ashokan period, and they would "only be found underground". (46)

In 1896, accompanied by the regional Nepalese governor, former Commander-In-Chief of the Nepalese Army General Khadga Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, Führer "discovered" a major inscription on a pillar of Ashoka, an inscription which, together with other evidence, confirmed Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. (47)The pillar itself had been known for some time already, reported by Khadga Shamsher to Vincent Arthur Smith a few years earlier. (48) Führer made his "great discovery" when he dug the earth around the pillar and reported the discovery of the inscription in a pristine state about one metre under the surface. (49) He claimed that the locals called the site "Rummindei", which he identified with the legendary "Lumbini", whereas it was found that the site was only called "Rupa-devi". (50) The authenticity of the "discovery" remained doubtful, (51) and was openly disputed in a 2008 book by British writer Charles Allen. (52)

Fuhrer's report on discoveries in Nepal

Following the "discovery" of the pillar, Führer relied on the accounts of ancient Chinese pilgrims to search for Kapilavastu, which he thought had to be in Tilaurakot. Unable to find anything, he started excavating some structures he said were stupas. In the act of faking pre-Mauryan inscriptions on bricks, he was caught by Vincent Arthur Smith. (53) The inscriptions were bluntly characterized by Smith as "impudent forgeries". (54)

Führer was again involved in a major discovery in January 1898: the reliquaries at Piprahwa. But he arrived only after the discovery was made, and did not have time to tamper with the evidence. (55)

Around the same time, Führer was selling fake relics "authentified" by a nonexistent inscription of Upagupta, the preceptor of Ashoka, to Shin U Ma, an important monk in Burma. (56) He wrote to the Burmese monk: "Perhaps you have seen from the papers that I succeeded in discovering the Lumbini grove where Lord Buddha was born", noting that "you have unpacked the sacred relics of our Blessed Lord Buddha which are undoubtedly authentic, and which will prove a blessing to those which worship them faithfully". (57) An "authentic tooth relics of the Buddha" sent by Führer in 1896 turned out to have been carved from a piece of ivory, and another sent in 1897 was that of a horse. (58) The forgery was reported in 1898 to the British North-Western Provinces Government in India by Burmologist and member of the Burma commission Bernard Houghton. An enquiry led to Führer's resignation on 16 September 1898. (59)

Führer had come under suspicion in March 1898 following the reported forgeries of the Buddha's relics. (60) A formal inquiry was launched into his activities, but officials struggled to find a "printable" reason for Führer's dismissal. (61) Führer was officially confronted by Vincent Arthur Smith, who reported the forgeries of the Buddha's relics. (62) Führer was exposed as "a forger and dealer in fake antiquities". (63) Smith also blamed Führer for administrative failures in filing his reports to the Government, and for a false report about his preparations for future publications on his archaeological research: Führer was obliged to admit "that every statement in it [the report] was absolutely false." (64) The false inscriptions supposed to authentify the Buddha relics were not mentioned in the investigations, apparently out of fear of casting doubt on the other epigraphical discoveries made by Führer. (65) The false publication of the ancient Burmese inscriptions, the object of an institutional cover-up, would not come to light before 1921, with the revelation of their inexistence made by Charles Duroiselle. (66)

Führer was relieved of his positions, his papers seized and his offices inspected by Smith on 22 September 1898. (67) Führer had written in 1897 a monograph on his discoveries in Nigali Sagar and Lumbini, Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birthplace in the Nepalese tarai, (68)which was withdrawn from circulation by the Government. (69)

Führer was dismissed and returned to Europe with his family. He died on 5 November 1930 in Binningen, Switzerland.

Vincent Arthur Smith, after retirement in 1901, revealed the blunt truth about the Nepalese discoveries and published a stark analysis of Führer's activities, apparently worried that "the reserved language used in previous official documents has been sometimes misinterpreted". (70) Smith said of Führer's description of the archaeological remains at Nigali Sagar that "every word of it is false", and characterized several of Führer's epigraphic discoveries as "impudent forgeries". (71) However, Smith never challenged the authenticity of the Lumbini pillar inscription and the Nigali Sagar inscription "discovered" by Führer. (72)

Lumbini pillar inscription

These "discoveries", at the time they were made, generated fantastic praise for the work of Führer. (73) According to the New York Post (3 May 1896) the Nigliva discovery "seems to carry the origin of Buddhism much further back". (74) The Liverpool Mercury (29 December 1896) reported that the discovery that Lumbini (also called Paderia) was "the actual birthplace of the Buddha ought to bring devout joy to about 627,000,000 people". (75) The Pall Mall Gazette (18 April 1898) related that the Piprahwa discovery "contains no less a relic than the bones of the Buddha himself". (76)

Führer was replaced as Curator of the Lucknow Museum by Edmund Smith, previously the Province's Architectural Surveyor. (77) The excavations in the Nepal Terai were entrusted to Babu Purna Chandra Mukherji, who published the results of his investigations in 1903 in A Report on a Tour of Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal, the Region of Kapilavastu, in which Smith included an introduction entitled "Preparatory note" which details several of the forgeries made by Führer. (78)

Führer had an unusual religious career. He served as a Catholic priest, but in 1887 converted to Anglicanism. Following his expulsion from government service in India, Führer made plans to become a Buddhist monk. Quoting the Ceylon Standard, the Journal of the Mahabodhi Society noted: "Much interest has been excited in Buddhist and other circles at the prospect of Dr Führer coming to Ceylon to join the Buddhist priesthood. The Press notices recently made regarding this gentleman have given rise to grave suspicion. We understand that Dr Führer will have an opportunity given him of refuting the charges made against him before he is accepted by the leading Buddhists here as an exponent of the religion of Buddha."(79) These plans seem to have come to nothing because in 1901 Führer re-converted to the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland and worked as a priest from 1906 to 1930. (80) 

The connection that Führer had with Buhler was extraordinary-While working with the ASI, he sent impressions of many inscriptions, supposedly found during the excavation, to Buhler in Vienna, who deciphered and validated them. Huxley sees this as a joint venture of Führer and Buhler. (81) Buhler had no chance to see the originals of any of the inscriptions excavated by Führer. Führer wrote false reports, drawing from Buhler's work of Sanchi and Mathura and inserted it in his Ramanagar account. "This wholesale deception appears to have passed completely unnoticed during this period," Phelps writes, "including apparently by Buhler himself." (82)

Further, Phelps remarks: "Immediately following Führer's exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Führer's supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental."

Charles Allen suggests that Führer must have sent from Lucknow copies of his "preliminary brief report on the results of the Nepalese excavations...1897-198" and proof copies of Antiquities of Buddha Sakyamuni's Birthplace in the Nepalese Tarai to Buhler in Vienna. If Buhler had compared the two documents, he would have realised that Führer's "discoveries," which were fully endorsed and lauded in print by Buhler were bogus. (83) Allen ascertains that Buhler had indeed taken his own life after he was led to believe that the Priprahwa inscription was another fraud by Führer. (84)

The re-conversion of Führer proved the design of the missionaries about India. Georg Buhler, who had acknowledged Fuhrer's "discoveries", had also a missionary background- he was the son of a priest, Rev. Johann G. Bühler in Borstel, Hanover. Führer had studied Roman Catholic theology. After re-conversion, he is said to have been the Professor of Indian languages at Basel University, but it seems that he only applied for this post and was rejected. Instead, he worked from 1906 as a pastor in Binningen near Basel.

If the fraud was a joint venture, as Huxley suspected, it would have been a missionary design, to appropriate Buddha.

______________________

1. Charles Allen (2010), The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal, Penguin Books India, pp. 173–176

2. "Fuehrer, Alois Anton (1853-1930)". Indologica - Digitalisate (in German). 21 September 2010

3. Führer, AA (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's Birth-Place in the Nepalese Tarai. Allahabad: Government Press, North-Western Provinces and Oudh. pp. 1–48.

4. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–236.

5. Winternitz,  Moritz, Georg Buhler in Memoriam, Indian Antiquary 1898, 27:337-349, quoted in Amruta Chintaman Natu, Georg Buhler's Death: Perception and Possibility, 2019, Centre of Jaina Studies, News Letter, SOAS, University of London, March 2019, Issue 14

6. ibid

7. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 490

8. ibid, 20 (4): 489–502.

9. ibid, 20 (4): 490 

10. ibid

11. 20 (4): 489–502

12. ibid

13. ibid

14. ibid, 492

15. ibid, 496–498

16. ibid, 496–498

17. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 66.

18. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 496–498

19. ibid, "Some years later A. Führer undertook the excavation of a temple without much result." in Possehl, Gregory L. (2003). "Ahichchhatra". Oxford Art Online

20. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 496–498

21. ibid

22. ibid

23. ibid

24. ibid

25. ibid

26. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 494–495.

27. ibid

28. ibid

29. Allen, Charles (2010). The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal. Penguin Books India. p. 242, Lüders, H. (1912). "On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 44: 153–179.

30. ibid

31. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502.

32. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 59–82.

33. Education Society’s Press, Byculla Bombay (1895). The Indian Antiquary Vol-xxiv(1895). p. 275 "Source of Sanskrit words in Burmese"

34. Harvey, G. E. (2019). History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 The Beginning of the English Conquest. Routledge. p. 211

35. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 60–61

36. Duroiselle, Charles (1921). A list of inscriptions found in Burma. Rangoon Superintendent, Government Print., Burma. p. ii, note 1.

37. Finot, L. (1922). "Review of Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1921; Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1922; A List of Inscriptions found in Burma. Part 1. The List of Inscriptions arranged in the order of their dates". Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient. 22: 208

38. In 1893 a Nepalese officer on a hunting expedition found an Asokan pillar near Nigliva, at Nigali Sagar." Falk, Harry (January 1998). The discovery of Lumbinī. p. 9

39. Smith, Vincent A. (1897). "The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 616

40. Führer, Alois Anton (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birth-place in the Nepalese tarai /. Allahabad : Govt. Press, N.W.P. and Oudh. p. 22

41. Thomas, Edward Joseph (2000). The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Courier Corporation

42. "On all sides around this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures." This elaborate description was not supported by a single drawing, plan, or photograph. Every word of it is false." in Rijal, Babu Krishna; Mukherji, Poorno Chander (1996). 100 Years of Archaeological Research in Lumbini, Kapilavastu & Devadaha. S.K. International Publishing House. p. 58.

43. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

44. Falk, Harry (January 1998). The discovery of Lumbinī. p. 11

45. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502

46. Bühler, G. (1895). "Some Notes on Past and Future Archœological Explorations in India". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 649–660, Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502.

47. Weise, Kai (2013). The Sacred Garden of Lumbini: Perceptions of Buddha's birthplace. UNESCO. pp. 63–64

48. ibid

49. ibid

50. Thomas, Edward J. (2013). The Life of Buddha. Routledge. p. 18, note 3

51. Thomas, Edward J. (2002). History of Buddhist Thought. Courier Corporation. p. 155, note 1.

52. Allen, Charles (2008). The Buddha and Dr Führer: an archaeological scandal. London: Haus

53. Dhammika, Shravasti (2008). Middle Land, Middle Way: A Pilgrim's Guide to the Buddha's India. Buddhist Publication Society. p. 41. Fuhrer's attempt to associate the names of eighteen Sakyas, including Mahanaman, with the structures, on the false claim of writings in pre-Asokan characters, was fortunately foiled in time by V.A. Smith, who paid a surprise visit when the excavation was in progress. The forgery was exposed to the public." in East and West. Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 1979. p. 66

54. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

55. Ciurtin, Eugen. "Review of Charles ALLEN, The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal [New Delhi: Penguin, 2010]": 542.

56. "As pointed out by Smith, in his preparatory note to Mukharji's Report, the inscriptions were 'impudent forgeries', and Führer had even gone to the extent of furnishing as proof fake relics of the Buddha, and a forged inscription of Upagupta, the preceptor of Ashoka..." in Singh, Upinder (2004). The discovery of ancient India: early archaeologists and the beginnings of archaeology. Permanent Black. p. 320. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

57. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 72–74

58. ibid, 19 (1): 72–74.

59. ibid  19 (1): 72–76

60. 19 (1): 74–77

61. 19 (1): 76–77

62. ibid

63. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2017). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 234–235

64. Willis, Michael (2012). "Dhār, Bhoja and Sarasvatī: from Indology to Political Mythology and Back". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 22 (1): 152.

65. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 76–77

66.  ibid, 19 (1): 76–77. Finot, L. (1922). "Review of Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1921; Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1922; A List of Inscriptions found in Burma. Part 1. The List of Inscriptions arranged in the order of their dates". Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient. 22: 208

67. Willis, M. (2012). "Dhar, Bhoja and Sarasvati: From Indology to Political Mythology and Back". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 22 (1): 129–53

68. Führer, Alois Anton (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birth-place in the Nepalese tarai. Allahabad : Govt. Press, N.W.P. and Oudh

69. Thomas, Edward Joseph (2000). The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Courier Corporation. p. 18.

70. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

71. ibid

72. Smith, vincent A. (1914). The Early History Of India Ed. 3rd. p. 169

73. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 65

74. ibid

75. ibid

76. ibid

77. Allen, Charles (2010). The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal. Penguin Books India. p. 178

78. ibid

79. Anon, Journal of the Calcutta Mahabodhi Society 10.8-9 (December 1901 and January 1902), p. 1

80. Arx, Urs von (2005). In Marco Jorio, Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz vol. 4, Basel: Schwabe

81. Huxley, p 495

82. Phelps, T A, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, 2008. Quoted in Amruta Chintaman Natu, Georg Buhler's Death: Perception and Possibility, 2019, Centre of Jaina Studies, News Letter, SOAS, University of London, March 2019, Issue 14

83. Allen, p 165

84. Allen, 176

© Ramachandran 

MANUSMRITI WAS NEVER A HINDU LAW

The Christian Agenda Exposed

The ancient Indian legal text Manusmriti was never the constitution of any of the Hindu kingdoms ever. Kings ruled - they were the supreme adjudicators in matters of law. Kings, who were running the show, made up their own laws. Brahmins were a tiny minority and never had any real power. They were kept as advisors and judges or as in the case of King Dhritarashtra - he kept a Sudra advisor who was the wisest man in the land, Vidura. It is proof that a Brahmin need not be the advisor to a King, always.

Manusmriti was selected and elevated to canonical status in Hinduism just like Quran and Bible, in Islam and Christianity, by vested British interests, when their power over information was absolute. They "found" castes in the text and these categories were institutionalised in the mid to late 19th century through the census. The fact is- Hinduism is an organic religion and not a revealed religion like Abrahamic religions. There is no single book, no single Prophet here, and Manusmriti was never administered as a binding legal text at any point in time in Hindu society. This was a colonial missionary interpretation. 

Manu was not a Brahmin, but a Kshatriya king who wrote a book of laws society and crime about a minimum of 2400 years ago. His set of laws called Manusmriti has been heavily interpolated over the centuries - the text we have today is not the original text.

Europeans "discovered" the Manusmriti about the same time as the United States was adopting a Constitution, in the 1790s, when a British judge sent to India, William Jones, learned the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, translated the Manusmriti and published it. (I) (Other translations followed, by William Jones (1794), Manmath Nath Dutta (1895), George Buehler (1896), Gganganath Jha (1920), Wendy Doniger & Smith (1991), and Patrick Olivellee (2005).  

The modern caste system for which Ambedkarites blame Manu is a complete fraud; Caste, as we know it today, is a product of colonial racism. Darwin’s theory resulted in an academic field officially known as race science, which culminated in Lord Risley’s classification of Indian diversity into a hierarchy. This was enforced by the British. 

Part of the Harappan civilization

Manusmriti could be a product of the Indus/Harappa civilization because there seems to be a level of intellectual sophistication in the Rig Veda, Manusmrit and the remains of the civilization. Once that level of urbanization, international trade and standardization of the civilization ended, the next period of sophistication dawned in Indian history somewhere prior to the Buddhist King, Asoka, in 300 BCE.  

The majority of Indus/Harappan civilization's Archeological remains have been carbon-14 dated between 3000 to 2000 BCE, which starts with Mehrgarh (time-dated from about 8000-6000 BC) and ends in the "post-Indus/Harappa civilization" that commences with the date that the River Sarasvatii dried up, around 1900 BCE.

Manusmriti seems definitely to have been composed after Rig Veda. Manusmriti does mention the Rig Veda many times, but the Rig Veda does not mention the Manusmriti even once. But the Manusmriti mentions the Rig Veda as the cornerstone of its civilization's spiritual thought. Manusmriti, Chapter one, verse 23, says: "But from fire, wind, and the sun he (the Creator) drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called Rik (Rig), Vagus (Yajur), and Saman, for the due performance of the sacrifice. (1)

Manusmriti mentions the River Sarasvatii as a "divine River", but does not "sing the praises" of the river as the Rig Veda does, treating the River Sarasvatii more as a geographical marker. Manusmriti in Chapter 2, verse 17, says, "That land, created by the gods, which lies between the two divine rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati, the (sages) call Brahmavarta. (2) Manusmriti would not describe a thriving tract of land such as "Brahmavarta" if that tract was already abandoned. Since Sarasvsti then had not yet dried up, one could logically conclude that therefore, "Brahmavarta", must have been vibrant, during the time of the composition of Manusmriti.  

The Drishadvati River is also dried up and has not been located exactly. Some scholars believe that the Drishadvati River was located northeast of the Sarasvati, and actually flowed into the Sarasvati.  Some others believe that the Drishadvati was located just due east of the Sarasvati, and flowed almost parallel to the Sarasvati. These locations are also the Indus/Harappan civilization locations. A number of years ago, the ancient dried-up Sarasvati-Drishadvati river zone yielded the discovery of 1,200 sites, out of a total of more than 1,600 civilization sites in both India and Pakistan. (3)

In that civilization, those people with a talent for memorization and a willingness to dedicate their lives to preserving knowledge were called Brahmins. During the time of Manusmriti, these Brahmins could, with exact precision, recite any law, on any topic, especially since the Manusmriti prescribed a study period for those who studied to be either thirty-six years or eighteen years if it was required by the "king, sitting as a judge" to call on the other Brahmins, to sit as a judge. Manusmriti speaks about three Vedas. It doesn't mention the fourth, maybe because it was not composed or the fourth was not held in high esteem.

Some texts talk about Brahmins being spiritually-minded and "begging" for their food each day. We learn from Manusmriti and its commentaries that in addition to their spirituality, the Brahmins were actually at the top of society. The Brahmins did not have to do manual labour. When the Brahmins committed crimes, the punishments for their crimes were less harsh than for other members of society. Although in some parts of the Manusmriti, the Brahmins were not supposed to lend money, in other parts, the Brahmins were allowed to loan money and to charge the maximum amount of interest on a loan, more than any other class of society. Brahmins could charge interest rates of up to 60% per year, compared to royalty/warriors called Kshatriya ("Kshatriya") who could charge only up to 48% per year, cattlemen/merchants called Vaisyas ("vaisya") who could charge up to 36% in a  year, and even servants/Shudras who could charge up to 24% a year on a loan. (4)  

Giving food or other gifts to a Brahmin was considered to be a practice that would earn the other members of the  society a type of "spiritual merit."  Some modem translators of the Manusmriti have rendered the word for the Brahmins, to the English word, "priest". This is mostly incorrect. When Europeans began translating the Manusmriti and the Rig Veda, the translators were probably members of European Christian churches dressed in black robes, "interceding" between "God" and the non-priests or "lay" members of that church.

Even though the Brahmin class or caste was treated as the highest level of the society of ancient India, this was the price that the community found it had to "pay" in order to maintain its "human memorizing machines. Furthermore, the Brahmin had to daily perform their reciting functions more than their "priestly" functions.

 Manusmriti shows us that the Brahmin had to memorize and be able to "spit out" on a moment's notice more information on more other topics things than "prayers"; the ability to recite the law was very important to all of the citizens, and Manusmriti even contained such important non-spiritual topics as weights and measures. In ancient India, the idea of preserving knowledge by writing was rejected, because of the impermanency of writing on clay pots, clay seals or even carving on a stone that could be broken or on palm leaves, parchment or leather that could be lost or burned by an enemy. For anyone who wants to give up their entire lives to become a Brahmin as a memory machine, it was found to be necessary to elevate the social status of the Brahmins, so that children could aspire to devote their lives to becoming Brahmin. Food and shelter were provided by the society so that the Brahmins did not have to do other work in order to "earn their daily bread".

The main "work" that the Brahmins did was to remember their "book" by chanting it several times a day and by teaching it to the next generation. Manusmriti: 3.134 says: "Some Brahmanas are devoted to (the pursuit of) knowledge, and others to (the performance of) austerities; some to austerities and to the recitation of the Veda, and others to (the performance of) sacred rites. (5) This is not a "priest" performing a sacerdotal function. 

Manusmriti verse 3. 1 says: "The vow (of studying) the three Vedas under a teacher must be kept for thirty-six years, or for half that time, or for a quarter, or until the (student) has perfectly learnt them. (6) If one studies for thirty-six years, that is a long time, and is more of a path of knowledge.

The word '"Manu" has many different meanings depending on the context. '"Manu" can mean: '"thinking, wise or intelligent". "Manu" can also generally mean man or mankind, or '"the man par excellence" or the representative man and father of the human race. In the Rig Veda, '"Manu" is said to have been the first to have instituted sacrifices and religious ceremonies. "Manu" is also used to describe a divine being or a mythical progenitor of the earth. (7)

At the time of the composition of the Rig Veda, "Rishis" were "enlightened" beings or seers who were able to "see" or "hear" the songs of the Universe and sing or chant them out loud. "Manu" refers to a "Maha-rishi", or a family or school of Rishis.

In ancient India, at the time of the composition of the Manusmriti, there was a differentiation between the information that was considered "divine in origin" and that that was generated by man. The "divine in origin" compositions were called Shruti and the human-generated "books" were called Smriti. There were several written codes of Manu, Yajnavalkya and the 16 succeeding inspired lawgivers, viz. Atri, Vishnu Harita, Usanas or Sukra, Angiras, Yama, Apastamba, Samvarta, Katyayana, Brihas-pati, Parasara, Vyasa, Sankha, Likhita, Daksha and Gautama. (8) Smriti is 'sruthi' texts in a practical way...they are intended for ordinary people or less intelligent people... (9)

Rig Veda especially was the chief Shruti, which was chanted or sung every day and which was, the original "law book", the codification of everything that the average person of that time believed: for instance, that there was a god, or force of nature called "Agni", which was responsible simultaneously for hot "fire", for the "fire of digestion" and the "spark" in human brains. All of those "fires" could be made better or stronger by "chanting" hymns of praise to "Agni". A lack of singing "Agni" praises would result in all of those "fires" not being "stoked" or cared for and result in a weakening of those fires whether it was a real hot "fire", the "fire of digestion" or the "spark" in human brains. An example of Shruti is from Rig Veda, Chapter II (Second Mandala), Hymn 1, directed to Agni and others:

 "Thou, Agni, shining in thy glory through the days, art brought to life from out the waters, from the stone:
 From out the forest trees and herbs that grow on the ground, thou, Sovran Lord of men art generated pure.
Thine is the Herald's task and Cleanser's duly timed; Leader art thou, and Kindler for the pious man.
Thou art Director, thou the ministering Priest: thou art the Brahman, Lord and Master in our home.
Hero of Heroes, Agni! Thou art Indra, thou art Visnu of the Mighty Stride, adorable:
Thou, Brahmanaspati, the Brahman finding wealth: thou, 0 Sustainer, with thy wisdom tendest us.
Agni, thou art King Varuna whose laws stand fast; as Mitra, Wonder-Worker, thou must be implored  
Aryaman, heroes' Lord, art thou, enriching all, and liberal Amsa in the synod, thou God." (10)

One of the biggest differences between the Vedas and the Manusmriti is the notion that God will give out rewards or punishments to humans rather than kings or village chiefs, acting as judges, giving out punishments. These "divine rewards" came in the form of sufficient rain for watering crops. 

The "rewards and punishments" mentioned in the Vedas are immediate, whereas in Manusmriti much more time is devoted to heavenly rewards. The punishments were also not immediate; many were punishments after death, for instance, being sent to one of the eighteen hells, or the threat of being reincarnated as some very undesirable animal.

Within each phrase of Rig Veda, there exist many references packed with hidden meanings. For instance, "agni" is defined as: "fire, sacrificial fire (of three kinds); the god of fire, the fire of the stomach, digestive faculty, gastric fluid; bile; gold; (11)

The word Brahmin means growth, expansion, evolution, development, swelling of the spirit or soul, pious effusion or utterance, the outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods; the sacred word, the Veda, a sacred text, a text or Mantra used as a spell; the sacred syllable Om; religious or spiritual knowledge; holy life; the Brahma or one self-existent impersonal Spirit, the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return), the Self-existent, the Absolute, the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and-knowledge; the class of men who are the repositories and communicators of sacred knowledge, the Brahmanical caste as a body, one versed in sacred knowledge; the Brahman was the most learned of them and was required to know the three Vedas, to supervise the sacrifice and to set right mistakes. (12)

Manusmriti is a "less divine" "Smriti"-"that which is remembered", not a "more divine" "Shruti"-"that which is heard" by a Rishi, like the Rig Veda, which contains much "hidden" information.

while the Rig Veda is a Hindu text, Manusmriti is not; but it seems to belong to the time of the same civilization. 

It is clear that there were strong trading ties (pre-Hammurabi Dynasty) between Mesopotamia and Meluhha, of the ancient Indian Harappa Civilization. The Manusmriti could have influenced the Code of Hammurabi. The Vedic people engaged in sea trade. Rig Veda IX.33.6: "From every side, 0 Soma, for our profit, pour thou forth four seas; Filled full of riches thousandfold. (13) This has led some scholars to conclude that the Indus/Harappa Civilization was the same as the Vedic civilization. Those scholars say that the Vedic-Harappans engaged in sea trade. (14)

Another Indus/Harappa Civilization site near the city of Lothal is Naeswar, in the modern-day Indian state of Gujarat and is located about 20 kilometres northeast of Dwarka. Naeswar was a major Indus/Harappa civilization period centre for shell works. (15) Some scholars say that the dockyard of Lothal is a holding tank for water. But the evidence points to it being a wharf. The Lothal dockyard measures 214 x 36 meters; a wharf served the purpose of handling cargo and lies along the western embankment wall; kiln-dried bricks were precious to the inhabitants of Lothal, therefore they would not have been used millions of them to make this structure if it was only an irrigation water holding tank. (16) The dockyard at Lothal is a man-made dock, more than four thousand years old, made with very high technical skill, and made with millions of baked bricks. The Indus/Harappa Civilization site of Dwarka has yielded more than fifty stone anchors, which have survived even if their wooden ships did not; Dwarka must have been an important port in the past for the local and international trading of the Indus/Harappa Civilization. (17)

King Sargon of Mesopotamia (about 1900 BC) was quoted as boasting that the boats of Dilmun, Magan and Meluha lay anchored at his docks at Agade, which was his capital. (18) Since Meluha is now widely accepted to mean the Indus/Harappa Civilization, this quote points to the international trade carried on by the Indus/Harappa Civilization from its ports such as Lothal. Many Indus seals have been found in Bahrain, adding to the theory that the merchants of the Indus/Harappa Civilization had colonies at Failaka, Ras-al-Aala and Failaka. Shells are not available in Gulf countries and were therefore traded by merchants from the Indus/Harappa Civilization city of Lothal to Bahrain and Mesopotamia; a special shell called Shangkha is very sacred today in Hindu temples and was also found to be important in the Indus/Harappa Civilization. (19)

The Rig Veda talks about sea trade (RV 9.33.6) and boats with one hundred oars (RV 1.116.5). (20) 

The Rigvedic village, grama, probably had a population of about one hundred people known as a Jana and had a king, raja ruling over it. (21) Monier-Williams defines raja as not only a king but also a sovereign, a chief or a best of its kind. (22)  The Vedic people had sabhaas and samitis whose functions seem to have been both legislative and to give advice to rulers. The rulers had a hierarchical status, raajan, raajaka, and the lowest, Samrat. (23)

The Manusmriti (I: 89) has an entire chapter devoted to laws and advice regarding rulers and kings. It is summed up in one verse in the first chapter, saying that the Creator commanded all members of the Kshatriya caste (the royal and warrior caste) to protect the people, etc: "The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself sensual pleasures. (24) Abstinence from sensual pleasures was something that almost all kings of the time did.

Manusmriti verse 6.62 says: "Among them let him (the King, the Chief) employ the brave, the skilful, the high-born, and the honest in (offices for the collection of) revenue, (e.g.) in mines, manufactures, and storehouses, (but) the timid in the interior of his palace". (25) 

Manusmriti, 6.63: "Let him also appoint an ambassador who is versed in all sciences, who understands hints, expressions of the face and gestures, who is honest, skilful, and of(noble) family." verse 6.64: "(Such) an ambassador is commended to a king (who is) loyal, honest, skilful, possessing a good memory, who knows the (proper) place and time (for action, who is) handsome, fearless, and eloquent." (26) 

Manusmriti 6.65: "The army depends on the official (placed in charge of it), the due control (of the subjects) on the army, the treasury and the (government of) the realm on the king, peace and its opposite (war) on the ambassador. (27) Verse6.66: "For the ambassador alone makes (kings') allies and separates allies; the ambassador transacts that business by which (kings) are disunited or not." (28) 

Very complicated local and international governmental practices are described here, emphasizing another relationship between the Indus/Harappa Civilization and the Manusmriti society.

Manu: 6.67: "With respect to the affairs let the (ambassador) explore the expression of the countenance, the gestures and actions of the (foreign king) through the gestures and actions of his confidential (advisers), and (discover) his designs among his servants. (29)

Manu: 6.68: "Having learnt exactly (from his ambassador) the designs of the foreign king, let (the king) take such measures that he does not bring evil on himself. (30)

Manu: 7.115: "Let him appoint a lord over (each) village, as well as lords often villages, lords of twenty, lords of a hundred, and lords of a thousand. (31) 

This is evidence of the Indus/Harappa Civilization with its standardization of production. Within the Manusmriti, the amounts of taxes were described down to each level of society and means of production. These descriptions also give a glimpse into the lives of the people. 

The Indus/Harappa Civilization made progress towards "civilized life" by using the "technology" of harnessing the use of animal power and the "technology" of the division of labour, in addition to urban planning, jewellery making, sanitation and long-distance maritime trade. These "technologies" have been also mentioned in the Rig Veda and Manusmriti. Throughout the vast Indus/Harappa Civilization empire, standardization helped mass production. 

There was no caste system

Originally, there was no fixed caste system in India. In the ninth mandala of the Rig Veda, hymn CXII, individuals get to choose their work rather than being born into it.  The author of verse 3 calls himself/herself the singer or the poet. And his/her father is an Ayurvedic physician and his mother is doing the cooking (or perhaps works as a miller). The author of this verse has a different task in society than that of his mother or father, a certain reference to not being trapped into one course of action or profession or caste or class:

"A bard (poet/singer) am I, my dad's a leech (an AyurVedic physician),
mammy lays corn upon the stones (a miller)  
Striving for wealth, with varied plans, we follow our desires like kine.
Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake." (32)  

It does not appear from this verse that the stratification of society has yet happened. The people do not seem "locked in" to one of the castes just by their birth to a father and mother of a particular caste. The first verse says: 

"We all have various thoughts and plans, and diverse are the ways of men. 

The Brahman seeks the worshipper, the wright seeks the cracked wheel, 

and the leech (an AyurVedic physician), the maimed. 

Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake." (33)  

But in the first chapter of the Manusmriti, reference is made to the creation of human beings by the Creator and the division of human beings. Chapter 1, Verse 31: (34) 

"That the human race might be multiplied, he caused the Braahman, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Suudra (so named from the scripture, protection, wealth and labour) to proceed from his mouth, his arm, this thigh, and his foot. (35) 

There are many philosophers from India that read passages in the Rig Veda to mean that the gods actually "feed" on prayers and sacrifices made by human beings. And if such prayers and sacrifices are not made, the gods "starve", while longing for more human beings to "feed" them. Oldest commentator Medhaatithi shares this worldview. (36) Since "prayers" and the kind of "sacrifices" here are mostly verbal, it makes sense that this kind of philosophy would emphasize the human mouth as one of the most important organs of the human body. Not only that, but also, a kind of opposite is true: that the god of creation has a type of "body", similar in many ways to the human body, and that different human beings are formed from different parts of that body. Of course, it follows, under this theory, that human beings, whose human task it is to verbally pray would be born from the mouth of the god of creation. And that other classes or castes of human beings would be created from various other "parts" of that same god of creation.

William Jones

According to Manmatha Nath Dutt, who translated Manusmrithi in 1909, originally there was no caste. He says that there is something called "universal evolution and that people wanted to be born at the " ...beck and call of ideation (Brahmana), protectiveness (Kshatriya), and sustentative function (Vaisya). They respectively gave them the names of Kshatriya (soldier), Vaisya (merchant or farmer) and Sudra (artisan or servant). Sudratvam is held identical to Karmatvam, work, action, or service. Originally a Sudra meant an evangelist of service to mankind, although, by an unfortunate degeneration of its meaning, it subsequently came to be synonymous with something low. (37)

The Rig Veda society seems to be much more flexible with moving from one caste to another, based on one's actions in life, not based on one's parents. The Manusmriti seems much more inflexible. Dutt infers that the members of these different castes accepted the classification within their society and that it was much different than the divisions in modern society, which he considers arbitrary:

"These distinctions of castes have nothing of the hatred and the sense of inequality, which prompted many a civilized society of modern times to lay down an arbitrary barrier between man and man, to create an artificial gulf between the classes and the masses, only on the basis of money-qualification. The framers of the ancient Samhithas recognised the inevitable necessity of organising a division of labour among the several orders of the society." (38)  

Dutt, a disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, records cooperation as the basis of the caste system: "The caste system had its origin in the principle of cooperation and reciprocal help, and not in contempt and spitefulness as it is now erroneously believed in certain quarters. A good Sudra (an artisan) was as much free and as much honourable as any Kshatriya, or any Vaisya or even any Brahmana in ancient India." (39)  Dutt claims that Sudras enjoyed all of the civic rights that every other member of society enjoyed. This was much different from the slaves that existed in most other societies throughout the world at that time.

The word Dvija denotes a Brahmin, and is defined as: "twice-born; a man of any one of the first three classes, any Aryan, (especially) a Brahman (re-born through investiture with the sacred thread (upanayana) ... (40) If the Manusmriti stated that the most sacred members of the society of that time were produced from the Creator's head, then perhaps it was easier to convince the general populace of that time of the "correctness" of this philosophical position. It was a position that anyone among the first three "castes" could achieve through scholarship, and the sacred thread was a symbol of attaining or joining the scholarship. The person became a Brahmana only after getting the sanction to wear the thread.

Movement from one class or caste to another was technically forbidden at the time of Manusmriti, as was intermarriage between the classes. Although in practice, it must have been quite common, because one part of Manusmriti has names for all of the children of the combinations. The belief in reincarnation was strong at the time, and it was said that the only means by which a person could hope to change their class or caste was by doing a "good job" for an entire lifetime and hoping that they would advance in class or caste during their next incarnation. Separate duties for each caste depending on their origin: The Law Code of Manu-Chapter 8, Verse 87: (41)

"For the sake of preserving this universe, the Being, supremely glorious, allotted separate duties to those who sprang respectively from his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his foot." (42) This seems to be part of that extremely clever way of convincing people to "stay in their place" in society. 

Brahmin duties: The Law Code of Manu-Chapter 8, Verse 88: "To Brahmans, he has assigned the duties of reading the Veda, of teaching it, of sacrificing, of assisting others to sacrifice or giving alms, if they are rich, and, if indigent, of receiving gifts."(43)  

Kshatriya duties: The Law Code of Manu-Chapter 8, Verse 89: '"To defend the people, to give alms, to sacrifice, to read the Veda, to shun the allurements of sensual gratification, are, in a few words, the duties of a Kshatriya." (44)

Vaisya duties: The Law Code of Manu-Chapter 8, Verse 90: "To keep herds of cattle, to bestow largesses, to sacrifice, to read the scripture, to carry on trade, to lend at interest, and to cultivate land are prescribed or permitted to a Vaisya. (45)

Sudra: "One principal duty the supreme Ruler assigns to a sudra; namely, to serve the before-mentioned classes, without depreciating their worth." (46)

Not a Hindu codebook  

But, Manusmriti was considered a non-core Hindu book before the British invasion of India. When the British tried to decode Hindusim, they thought Manu is the first man, and he gave the first book Manusmriti and thus as rulers, poured down the idea that Manusmriti and the caste system are part of core Hinduism. Since it prevailed for the entire British era, a fringe concept became part of daily life and caste discrimination was the result.

Manu gave the first smriti and there are about 17 more, the most important being Atreyasmriti, which is irrelevant now. Manusmriti is not a textbook for Hinduism. There are 18 major Smritis including one lesser-known one written by a woman, Madalasa Smriti.

Madalasa was the daughter of Vishvasu, the Gandharva king. She was also a great inspiration to her sons. Ritdhvaj, the son of the powerful king Shatrujit, was her husband. When Shatrujit died, Ritdhvaj took the position of king and engaged in royal duties. In due course, Madalasa gave birth to a son, Vikrant. When Vikrant would cry, Madalasa would sing words of wisdom to keep him quiet. She would sing that he was a pure soul, that he has no real name and his body is merely a vehicle made of the five elements. He is not really of the body, so why does he cry?

Throughout the Vedic cultures, women have always been given the highest level of respect and freedom, but also protection and safety. There is a Vedic saying, "Where women are worshipped, there the gods dwell, Or where the women are happy, there will be prosperity." Here is a direct quote from the Manu-Smriti: 

"Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers‑in‑law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honour women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes and (dainty) food." (47)

In a similar way that would foretell the future if women are no longer honoured, Grandfather Bhishma explained: "O ruler of the earth (Yuddhisthira), the lineage in which daughters and the daughters-in-law are saddened by ill-treatment, that lineage is destroyed. When out of their grief these women curse these households, such households lose their charm, prosperity and happiness." (48)

Furthermore, in the Vedas, when a woman is invited into the family through marriage, she enters "as a river enters the sea" and "to rule there along with her husband, as a queen, over the other members of the family." (49) This kind of equality is rarely found in any other religious scripture. Plus, a woman who is devoted to God is more highly regarded than a man who has no such devotion, as found in the Rig-Veda: "Yea, many a woman is firmer and better than the man who turns away from Gods and offers not." (50)

There were also women rishis who revealed the Vedic knowledge to others. For example, the 126th hymn of the first book of the Rig Veda was revealed by a Vedic woman, Romasha; the 179 hymn was by Lopamudra. There are a dozen names of women revealers of the Vedic wisdom, such as Visvavara, Shashvati, Gargi, Maitreyi, Apala, Ghosha, and Aditi who instructed Indra, one of the Gods, in the higher knowledge of Brahman. In early Vedic civilization women were always encouraged to pursue spiritual advancement without hindrance: "O bride! May the knowledge of the Vedas be in front of you and behind you, in your centre and at your ends. May you conduct your life after attaining the knowledge of the Vedas. May you be benevolent, the harbinger of good fortune and health, and live in great dignity and indeed be illumined in your husband's home." (51)

So, in the vast expanse of Hinduism, Manusmriti is a very rudimentary book. There is no evidence that Manusmriti was used as a core book to influence public policy by the kings. It contains the antiquated views of a King who was describing his vision of the “ideal” society over 2000 years ago.

Some of his views are very comparable to the (divine) laws of the “One and only True God”, given in the Bible - Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There are some horrific divine laws like stoning to death for almost every imagined and victimless crime, like picking up sticks for a fire on the Sabbath! (52). God in Leviticus 18 commands that homosexuals be stoned to death as people who have sex during menstruation. Nowhere does Manu mention witchcraft, but according to God’s law in the Bible, witches, male and female, must be killed by stoning. (53) Compared to the other “Sacred Laws” in circulation, Manu is not the worst.

The fundamental categorization of Hindu scriptures is in terms of shruti and smriti. The shruti texts are the Vedas, which are descriptive texts. So, they describe society and the different classes of people and their interactions as it really was. The smriti texts are prescriptive texts. It means these are various texts of individual authors who wrote their personal opinion of how things should be in their time. It is absurd to imagine that every single “law” written in these “law books” were actually implemented in practice without knowledge of how ancient Indian society was organized.

 Manusmriti is primarily meant for the members of the first three castes. It is “idealistic’ in that it was never a practical text, nor was it ever actually applied in any kingdom in ancient India. Laws in India were primarily caste-based - each and every caste was autonomous and created its own laws which governed them. It was only major disputes which were brought to the royal court. The Kings were primarily interested in collecting taxes and left the daily legalities to the caste panchayats and their self-governance.

The problem with the Dharmasasthras like Manusmriti started with their translation by European scholars like Julius Jolly, Hermann Oldenburg, and G. Buhler and edited by Max Muller. The translations were overall good but they entitled the collection The Sacred Laws of the Aryas. "Sacred” hints at being of divine origin and thus akin to the laws of the Bible or Quran. This is deceptive because they are neither divine nor even inspired by Divinity - they are the laws promulgated by human jurists according to time, place and circumstance and were by and large idealist and not pragmatic.

There is no authentic version of Manusmriti available. The most popular is the Calcutta manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka which was translated by William Jones. There are about 50 manuscripts of Manusmriti and each differs from the others, suggesting extensive interpolations:

1) Manu, 2) Umā-Maheśvara, 3) Nandi, 4) Brahmā, 5) Kumāra, 6) Dhūmrāyaṇa,
7) Kaṇva, 8) Vaiśvānara, 9) Bhṛgu, 10) Yājñavalkya, 11) Mārkaṇḍeya, 12) Kuśika,
13) Bharadvāja, 14) Bṛhaspati, 15) Kuni, 16) Kuṇibāhu, 17) Viśvāmitra, 18) Sumantu, 19) Jaimini, 20) Śakuni, 21) Pulastya, 22) Pulaha, 23) Pāvaka, 24) Agastya, 25) Mudgala, 26) Śāṇḍilya, 27) Solabhāyana, 28) Bālakhilya, 29) Saptarṣi, 30) Vyāghra, 31) Vyāsa, 32) Vibhāṇḍaka, 33) Vidura, 34) Bhṛgu, 35) Aṅgiras, 36) Vaiśampāyana.

It was the British who were confused by the proliferation and complexity of the local laws which made ruling the Hindus as a nation virtually impossible, so they decided to revive the Code of Manu under the wrongful guidance of their pet pandits. At the same time, they instituted Sharia’ for their Muslim subjects - a much easier task because the courts were already operating and each madhhab (school of jurisprudence) had an extensive legal library of jurisprudence with precedence and highly trained qāzis (judges).

But in the Hindu legal system, no Hindu kingdom followed Manusmriti or the other dharma shastras. Every king would ask his court pundits to make a new vyavahara text, which would be consistent with his family traditions and the culture of his subjects, keeping in mind their time. People complaining about Manusmriti are ignorant about Hindu kingdoms. Hindu kings prided themselves on how there are no thieves and no troubles in their kingdom, not on what harsh punishments they have. Indologists cannot accept that because, in Europe, they generally had horrible kings. They cannot accept that Indians were far more civilized than them. They also get a perverse pleasure in breaking Hinduism.

Hindu kingdoms had a multi-layered judicial system, which allowed the aggrieved party to go to a higher court. And the higher courts had the authority to give equivalent judgements, which did not physically harm them. If Smriti proposes molten lead into the ear canal of a criminal, it need not be taken as the rule prevailed. Lead was not an abundant cheap metal. There were people called jalladas whose job was to decapitate criminals, but there is not a single professional molten lead pourer in history. The law stipulated a harsh rule so that there will be no crime.

There were many Dharmashastras and Smritis written by different scholars in different languages who resided in different parts of India: Aśvalayana, Kauṣitaki, Śankhāyana, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Hiraṇyakeśin, Bhāradvāja, Satyasadha, Vaikhānasa, Arāśkara, Gobhila, Khadira, Jaimini, Kauśika, Yajnavalkya, Narada, and Manu, Vatsa, Marīci, Devala, Pāraskara, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Ṛṣyaśṛṅga, Likhita and Chāgaleva.

There are about 46 smritis and 13 upa-smritis. The key Upa Smritis are:
1) Logākṣi, 2) Kāśyapa, 3) Vyāsa, 4) Sanatkumāra, 5) Śāntanu, 6) Janaka,
7) Vyāghra, 8) Kātyāyana, 9) Jātūkarṇa, 10) Kapiñjala, 11) Baudhāyana,
12) Kaṇāda and Viśvāmitra.

Patrick Olivelle, an Indologist, who has been a Professor of Sanskrit and Indian Religions in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas, Austin since 1991, translated the Manusmriti (2005) and has stated his concerns about the fairness of the postmodern scholarship and the presumed authenticity and reliability of Manusmriti manuscripts:

"The Manusmriti was the first Indian legal text introduced to the western world through the translation of Sir William Jones in 1794. All the editions of the Manusmriti, except for Jolly's, reproduce the text as found in the [Calcutta] manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka. I have called this the "vulgate version". It was Kulluka's version that has been translated repeatedly: by Jones (1794), Burnell (1884), Buhler (1886) and Doniger (1991)...The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell (1884, xxix): "There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text."  This is far from the truth. Only a few of the over fifty manuscripts actually follow the vulgate in key readings." (54)

He is not the only scholar to voice such concerns. One of the most fierce counters was made by James Henry Nelson, a Madras High Court Judge in 1887, who, in a legal brief before the Madras High Court of British India, had raised questions about the nature of caste in India and the status of Brahmins in being the key interlocutors in interpreting and upholding the Code of Manu.

In his letter to Justice Innes (1882), he states that the Brahmins of South India have developed their own peculiar customs and practices and therefore one should not apply the law applicable to Brahmins in the North to them. Nelson also remarks that the groups considered to be Shudra may have their own scriptures propounded by their own Gurus and priests and may not avail of Brahmanic assistance in performing ceremonies and religious services. (55) 

He arrives at the conclusion that:

There are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the Manusmriti itself, and these contradictions would lead one to conclude that such a commentary did not lay down legal principles to be followed but was merely recommendatory in nature. (56) 

In fact, Nelson was scathing in his attack on the British and claimed they were deliberately manufacturing concepts which never existed. He criticised the functionalism present in the legal scholars of the colonial period claiming that they sought “to discover the existence of analogies between Sanskrit concepts and those of ancient Rome and modern Germany”. (57)

There is no historical evidence that Manusmriti was used in ancient India. In fact, a huge amount of evidence exists that society was extremely flexible, and Varna was more horizontal than vertical, where people changed their varnas according to their professions and conduct.

The life of a Brahmin was harder and he could lose his Brahmin status very easily due to all the rules. A Shudra’s life was much less strictly regulated and controlled, so he actually had more freedom. The Smritis can say a whole lot of things, but people are failing to understand that “saying things” is not the same as “doing things”.  There are countless examples where nobody cared what the Dharmashastras said, and did what their caste tradition was. For example, all the Dharmashastras prohibit cousin marriage, but there are many communities throughout India that practice cousin marriage. The Shastras prescribe seven levels of separation of sanguinity between the bride and groom, but even Buddha’s Shakya tribe, who called themselves Suryavamshi Kshatriyas and descendants of Rama, strictly had cousin marriage, completely disregarding the rules in the Dharmashastras. Similarly, many Brahmin communities in south India also do cousin marriage. 

Patrick Olivelle

It has become a common theme in modern times to selectively read through different kinds of traditional scriptures, and come to grossly erroneous and ill-informed conclusions about alleged atrocities or discrimination or denigration such as the question frame it. Most folks today see the ancient world retroactively through the lens of their current situation instead of doing a mental time-travel and putting themselves back in time. Life spans were short in those days (40 - 50 years was very old) and the imperative for most people was to learn a trade and get to work, get married at puberty - have as many kids as possible because one-third of them would die before their first birthday. The only way to get an education was to learn the trade of your father and your community. To study one Veda it took a full-time study of twelve years ending at age 21. Most commoners were parents of numerous children by then.

Thus, in reality, on the ground, it is unfair to say that “Brahmins used Manusmriti as a tool against Dalits”. The rules for Brahmins in Manusmriti are a hundred times more strict and severe than those for Shudras. For example, there is no punishment if a Shudra gets drunk, but if a Brahmin gets drunk, his punishment is to insert a heated sword down his throat as far as the liquor has gone down.

And, Manusmriti itself says that Vedas can be taught to everyone. Birth is no restriction. Verses 2:109-115: "All vidya (including Veda vidya) can be taught to all castes if they are capable of learning it." The only ones to whom it is forbidden to teach are, a) the traitors b) those who misuse/abuse the knowledge c) the jealous d) the incapable. Upanayana was an initiation rite for those who want to study Vedas. If a guru is found who will teach Vedas, birth was no bar for any who was born to sudras to learn any Vedas. 

Manusmriti does not define Hinduism in the same sense as Bible/Quran define those respective religions: it becomes clear that Manusmriti cannot be called “Hindu Law” – a term given to it by the British in the 18th century. It was only one of many dozens of smritis. No Hindu household keeps a copy of Manusmriti in their house and read it in the morning to get guidance on how to live their day. Instead, Hindu households use texts like Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, etc. to guide them. Each Hindu kingdom had its own code of laws, its Vyavahara text.

The Katyayana Samhita says: “Vyavahara is that which removes various doubts on the law.”  It means the Smriti texts are the source of the confusion, which makes writing the Vyavahara text necessary. Yajnavalkya Samhita says: “When a person complains about somebody flouting the provisions of laws given in the Smriti texts and the prevalent customs and goes to the king, that comes under the purview of Vyavahara.” This is an admission that the Vyavahara text supersedes the Smriti text.

Brihaspati Samhita says: “Vyavahara is two-fold, about Dhana and about Himsa.” That is, civil and criminal. We still have two kinds of laws only, civil and criminal. The difference is, in ancient times, the same court decided on both civil and criminal cases. 

Yajnavalkya mentioned that vyavahara laws will be initiated “when Smriti is flouted.” About the judges, sage Narada says: “There were five levels of judges. Kula (Family elders), Shreni (Business council), Gana (Traveling groups of legal scholars), Adhikrita (a Vedic scholar of Nyaya and Mimamsa) and Nripa (King)." This sequence of judges supersedes the previous judges. That makes the king the final authority.

The family elders are not experts on Smriti texts. If the two contesting sides are unhappy with their judgment, they go to the next level of judges: members of the Business Council. They too are not experts on Smriti texts. They will insist on enforcing peace through compromise. If the contesting sides are unhappy, they go to the travelling judges. These judges were enforcers of the Vyavahara text of their kingdom. If the contestants do not like the judgments of the travelling judges, they go to the Adhikrita judge. The title Adhikrita means that they are scholars, who can be trusted with properly interpreting the laws of the kingdom. Adhikrita judges frequently gave equivalent judgments, that did not physically harm anyone. If the contestants still do not like his judgment, they get to go to the king’s court.

The Smriti texts provided scary punishments, primarily to keep frivolous cases from taking up too much valuable time of the higher courts.  In Ramayana, Sri Rama treated dhobi's case as if this were a threat to Ayodhya society, resulting in turbulence in his own life. It was just one person, and other people of Ayodhya were quite happy with Rama and Sita. The situation could have been treated as an isolated case. A lesson was learned by Hindu kings. They did not want any more minor cases to reach the court of the king and disrupt the kingdom. These are some of the reasons why they developed the five-tier judicial system.

So, burning a Smriti text serves no purpose other than to the enemies of Hinduism. Manusmriti thus is the favourite tool of Hindu-phobic and break-India anti-nationalist forces who use it to divide the Hindu society and further their Eurocentric malicious agenda. But Hinduism will prevail, with its innate depth that will remain always a mystery to the ignoramus.

______________________________

1. Buehler, G., Laws Of Manu, n. 3

2. ibid

3. Sharma, IK, The Sarasvatii-Sindhu Civilization and Vedic Co-relations, n. 14, p. 149

4. Law Code of Manu, 8: 142. "Just two in the hundred, three, four, and five (and not more), he may take as monthly interest according to the order of the castes (varna)

5. Buehler, n.3

6. ibid

7. Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, n. 7

8. ibid, n. 8

9. Kutty, ET Sankaran, A Glimpse on SMRITI, (2006) p. 22-23

10. Ralph T.H. Griffith, The Rig Veda (1896)

11. Monier-Williams, n. 3

12. ibid, n. 8

13. Ralph T.H. Griffith, The Rig Veda (1896)

14. Lal, BB, Search for Vedic-Harappan Relationship, n. 14, p. 5

15. Gaur, Aniruddh, Harappan Maritime Legacies of Gujarat, n. 99, n. 99, p. 7

16. ibid, n 99, p 45

17. ibid, p 83

18. ibid, p 97

19. ibid, p 110

20. Lal, BB, The Sarasvati flows On, n. 16, p. 71

21. Dhavalikar, MK, The Aryans Myth and Archaeology, n.33, p. 53

22. Monier-Williams, n. 8

23. Lal, BB, Search for Vedic-Harappan Relationship, n. 14, p. 5

24. Buehler, G., Laws oF Manu, n. 3

25. ibid

26. ibid

27. ibid

28. ibid

29. ibid

30. ibid

31. ibid

32. Monier-Williams, n. 8

33. Griffith, Ralph, Hymns of the Rig Veda (1889, reprinted 1999)

34. William Jones's Translation (1794)

35. Jones, n.l, at Vol.3, 69; Manmatha Nath Durt's Translation (1895): "For the furtherance of the (good of the) world, he created Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaiya, and Siidra from his mouth, arms, thighs, and legs."

36. Jha, n.5, at 75: 'With a view to the development of the regions,' terrestrial and the rest;-'development' stands for Nourishment and expansion; it is only when the four castes, Braahmana and the rest, are there that there is the development of the three regions; for the Gods live upon offerings made by these castes,--these castes alone are entitled to the performance of sacrifices; so that the action done by these nourishes the two regions (celestial and subterranean); then again, the Gods also are prompted by men's action to act; from the SunGod comes the rain; and thus the said creation (of the Braahmana) tends to the nourishment of this (terrestrial) region also."

37. Dutt, MN, n. 3, p. 11

38. ibid

39. ibid

40. Monier-Williams, n. 8

41. William Jones's Translation (1794)

42. Jones, n.l, p. Yol.3, 77

43. Jha, n.5, at I

44. Jones, n.l, p. Vol.3, 77

45. ibid

46. ibid

47. Manu Smriti III.55-59

48. Mahabharata, Anushashanparva, 12.14

49. Atharva Veda 14.1.43-44

50.  Rig Veda, 5.61.6

51. Atharva Veda, 14.1.64

52.  Num. 15;32-35

53. Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20:27

54. Olivelle, Patrick,  Manu's Code of Law (2005), Oxford University Press, pages 353-354, 356-382

55. Srikantan G (2014), Entanglements in Legal History (Editor: Thomas Duve), Max Planck Institute: Germany, p 121–22

56. ibid, p 123

57. ibid

© Ramachandran