AN ANSWER TO VARIATIONS IN LEGAL PUNISHMENTS ACCORDING TO THE VARNAS IN MANUSMRITI

Regarding the question raised concerned with the punishment inflicted upon different varnas as per injunctions in Manusmriti, various departments like that of Philosophy and Sanskrit among others, internet crowd and intellectuals have made sweeping remarks on how the Brahmanas were inflicted with the harshest punishments as compared to others, thus showcasing an example of a lenient social framework of Manusmriti.

However, historical studies leave no doubt for the proposition of extremely biased position of Manu along with other lawgivers like Katyayana and Brihaspati

of Early India against the lower varnas. However, this answer shall concern only

the legal injunctions of Manu regarding punishments.

This type of sweeping remark was for the first time highlighted by Dr. Priyanath

Sen in his work ‘The General Principles of Hindu Jurisprudence’ where he argues, I

quote him, “It should be remarked that it is a mistake to suppose that every

offence's punishment increased in severity according to the inferiority of the caste

culprit like in theft…The Hindu law cannot, therefore, be accused of showing

unmixed or unqualified partiality towards people belonging to higher caste”. (Sen:

1918)

Dr. Sen, as the whole lobby mentioned above, relies solely on shlokas 337 and

338 of Chapter VIII of Manusmriti.

Ramprasad Das Gupta in his book ‘Crime and Punishment in Ancient India’ remarks on Sen’s observation as “This, on the face of it, is absurd”. (Gupta: 1930)

Let’s look at those two ‘golden’ shlokas:

aṣṭāpādyaṃ tu śūdrasya steye bhavati kilbiṣam |

ṣoḍaśaiva tu vaiśyasya dvātriṃśat kṣatriyasya ca || 337 ||

brāhmaṇasya catuḥṣaṣṭiḥ pūrṇaṃ vā'pi śataṃ bhavet |

dviguṇā vā catuḥṣaṣṭistaddoṣaguṇavidd hi saḥ || 338 ||

In the case of theft, the guilt of a Śūdra is eightfold, that of the Vaiśya sixteenfold, and that of the Kṣatriya thirty-two-fold ; - (337) that of the Brāhmaṇa sixty four-fold, or fully hundred-fold, or twice sixty-four-fold; when he is cognisant of

the good or bad quality of the act - (338).

What the concerned ones have not paid attention to is the context and

commentaries on the shlokas along with other shlokas of Manusmriti.

Medhatithi, the most famous and earliest commentator on Manusmriti, points

out in his work ‘Manubhashya’ that, “the reason for this exception is laid down in

the shlokas itself, ‘when he is cognisant of the good or bad quality of the act’.”

Further, he even suggests to not taking the injunction literally. (Commentary on

verse 337,338)

Prof. Ganganath Jha, an accepted name in Sanskrit literati, says that the reason

for such an injunction is ‘taddosagunavidhi sah’ - ‘because the brahmana is fully cognizant of the evil of theft’. Thus, looking down upon with disdain and completely denying the cognizant capacity of Shudra, if there is any.

As R S Sharma in his dissertation ‘Shudras in Ancient India’ points out that the

injunction is limited to theft and that too because, to quote him, “the habit of

stealing is thought to be more usual and inherent with the Shudras”. (Sharma:

1958)

Let’s not overlook the whole Manusmriti against these 2 shlokas only and get an

idea of the ‘proposed equality’ in legal injunctions of Manu.

Starting the succeeding verses of the quoted verses above, the Manusmriti lays

down the following injunction:

Even though they betake themselves to all sorts of undesirable acts, yet Brāhmaṇas should be honoured in every way; for they are the greatest divinity. (Verse 319, Chapter IX).

Manusmriti, like other lawgivers, in Chapter VII, verse 124,379 and 381 states that even for the worst offences, a brahmana is exempt from corporal (death)

punishment while even taking the name of twice-born (dvija) caste contumely invokes the thrusting of red-hot iron nail of ten fingers long in Shudra’s mouth. (Verse 271, Chapter VIII)

Hot oil poured into the mouth and ears (Verse 272, Chapter VIII), cutting off the

tongue (Verse 270, Chapter VIII), branding the hip and gashing the buttocks (Verse 281, Chapter VIII), cutting of the limb (Verse 279, Chapter VIII) among others are common punishments prescribed for Shudras and Antyajas (understood to be synonymous by Kulluka) for crimes as small as sitting on the same or nearer level of higher caste.

Manu further says that if a Shudra touches or pulls him down by the hair, beard, neck or scrotum, the hands of the same shall be amputated. (Verse 283, Chapter VIII) If a Shudra breaks wind against the Brahmana, his anus should be cut off or blocked (Verse 282, Chapter VIII).

There is no end to these terrific corporal punishments which are intentionally

prescribed so, so as to cause terror (Verse 248, Chapter IX)

As far as their implementation is concerned, Sharmas says on the basis of

accounts of Mahavastu and Saddharmapundrika that “there is small wonder if Shudra offenders were subjected to these punishments”. (Sharma: 1958)

However if the same act is carried by brahmana (or equal caste i.e. brahmana

against brahmana) it only draws a fine of 100 panas. The worst punishment for

Brahmanas is banishment. (Verse 284, Chapter VIII)

Same discrimination is seen in case of Murder (Verse 67, 131, 132, Chapter XI),

where a Shudras murder is a minor offence equal to a killing of bird but that of

Brahmana invokes harsh corporal punishments. Laws of Inheritance follow the trends (Verse 160, 151-154, 155, Chapter IX).

Manu’s laws likewise highly discriminate in adultery against Shudra men than Brahmana men.

While a Brahmana man shall be subjected to muttering of religious texts or in

worst case 500 panas (Verse 383, Chapter VIII; Verse 179 Chapter IX), a shudra

adulterer may face punishment ranging from cutting off of genitals to corporal

(death) penalty by being burnt alive (Verse 374, 377, Chapter VIII). 

Conclusion

Thus, statements denying these facts cannot stand the spirit of these prescribed injunctions (where we have only referred to a small portion of Manu Smriti and not other books) that is frankly partial towards higher castes. Even if one exception (being cited again and again) exists, that too is explained and rationalized. It is merely a pious recommendation to silence the moral scruples of law-giver.