This Article is written by Rajiv Malhotra
According to Rajive Malhotra, The fundamental categorization of Hindu scriptures is in terms of Shruti and Smriti. The Shruti texts are the Vedas, which are descriptive texts. This means they describe things as they really were. So they describe society and the different classes of people and their interactions as it really was. The Smriti texts are prescriptive texts. This means there are various texts of individual authors who wrote their personal opinion of how things should be in their time. These are framed as “laws” and the texts can be called “law books” in modern parlance. So with this fundamental definition in mind, it is highly unintelligent 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.
MANU SMRITI
Manusmriti was never the constitution of any of the kingdoms in India ever. Kings ruled – they were the supreme adjudicators in matters of law. Kings made up their own laws. They were running the show. 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.
Firstly the Law Book known as Manusmriti or Manvadharma Shastra was not the work of a single author, there are too many inconsistencies and contradictions.
Whatever the original text was there have been hundreds of interpolations over centuries. It contains laws, regulations and customs pertaining to every walk of life but is primarily meant for the members of the first 3 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 their 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 DS started with their translation by European scholars namely Julius Jolly, Hermann Oldenburg, G. Buhler and edited by Max Muller. The translations were overall good but they entitled the collection as “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 IDEALISTIC and not pragmatic.