Thursday 25 March 2021

Burning the Manu Smriti

 


Burning Manu Smriti has become a mandatory exercise. I have nothing for or against it, not having read it. I know it has some objectionable verses, but so does the Koran.
I would never burn the Koran, and so I think burning the Manu Smriti is also maybe incorrect.

Comments

  • Satheesh Kumar
    Burning any book is wrong in all counts.
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
  • Aparna Krishnan
    (via 
    Mark Johnston
    , and I agree). I am ignorant of so much of the local background to this. My ill informed view is that protest, which may include the destruction of goods, is a perfectly acceptable tool to use as part of our efforts to protect local livelihoods and cultures against the imposition of foreign goods and unfair tariffs by corporations and governments. I find much that I cannot personally condone in every dogmatically held belief system whether political or religious that I have so far come across. However much I trust in my own causes and world view I believe that it would be neither right nor constructive to burn books relating to deeply help beliefs by others. It would be hard to find examples in history where book burning has led to significant improvements in the ways that we treat each other.
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 4 mins · Edited
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
    • Narayana Sarma Ghadiyaram Venkata
      Smrithis were social dictates which possibly are our only linkages to Ancient society and its laws: like..- history books? I do not know if anything is achieved by burning them. History can not be erased by burning a book anyway. And now hardly anyone follows Manu smriti so burning its copy means nothing. I have not read it and have no interest in reading it either.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      All this burning seems drama value, I am sorry to say. Almost partyingt in a mob. I might have some activists on me like a ton of bricks for saying that - but I think the activists worth their salt act beyond and deeper than book burnings. Naren and Balagopal probably did not go burning books.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Then why did Ambedkar ? To take people along ?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Like Gandhi took people along by saying 'all spin and wear khadi' !
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
      • Edited
    • Narayana Sarma Ghadiyaram Venkata
      Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru, Tilak- all these are super politicians with their own very special trademark programmes. Gandh is gone, Ambedkar will continue for some time, and Bhagat singhs and Netajis will come up time and again. Presently Mayawathis, Chandrababus, Rahul gyandis, Modis, students, professors, writers -and practically anyone- can talk anything, do anything, and get away with everything 🙁
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Yes, but like the politicians with pea-sized brains made khadi wear a tokenism, similarly Manusmriti has been reduced to tokenism by those on that side.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
  • Mankanwaldeep Rampal
    Burn any book(as a show of protest against wrong, although this again will cause pollution<again bad side>) as long as it's digitized version is available on internet OR it is not an original handwritten historical textbook copy OR it isn't being used to incite communal violence .
    No to blasphemy laws similar to that of K.S.A, Pakistan.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
  • Amitabh Nigam
    Those who burn books are not competent to write their own counter-opinion, so in a sense it is an act of cowardice. As much as eliminating your adversary by illegal methods.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      I will tag you in another thread on this !
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
    • Sailesh Bhupalam
      burning books is not the same as banning them. It is symbolic and the utility as assumed here is neither that they want to destroy literature because they don't know how to respond to it, nor that they don't want anybody to read it. In fact people who … 
      See More
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Will tag you also !
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
  • Altab Hossain
    Who's burning it?
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
  • Harish Chandra
    Ambedkar too burned it. If many people like him opposed it certainly their must be some wrong in that book
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
  • Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan
    Certainly the book contains lot of unjust and discriminatory dispensations..but this is the justice of that time when the society was organised on a strict immutable hierarchical system and naturally the hiers of the oppressed in that system nurse a grievance and anger towards that. Buring the smirthi is symbolic of their resistance. A smirthi a proceedure code and there are few codes like manu some of them have gone out of operation due to macro changes in the then society.all along the religious heads have given imterpretation for proceedures based on shastras and the smrithi itself was evolving as per the needs of time.
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Yes, I also wondered how many religious people actually feel a sense of belonging to the Manu Smriti ! Smritis are for that yuga. In general I would think burning of any religious text Koran or Gita is avoidable. There would be other ways. Would Gandhi have approved of burning books ?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
      • Edited
    • Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan
      Gandhi as vivekananda thought that indian spirituality and religion had many praiseworthy things than condemnable things..and both of them have more messages and contributions for world peace and harmony. All the cited evils of hindu society not inherent but encrustations that could be clensed with a collective strong will without distrupting the edifice. For them a system can sustain itself by rediscovering and redefining itself in an ongoimg proceess. So no question of burning a set of evolvable texts..
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      and what would you say ?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 5y
    • Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan
      It is immaterial to me..i have been a believer and supporter of various social and political philosophies at every stage of my life believing a particular one is correct at a particular time. Some philosophies were diametrically opposite to the previous ones that thought correct. That does not mean i have to burn those in which i have lost faith..let it remain..for those people who are keen to burn it..let them burn so that their wish or ego is satisfied. Burning unwanted texts is not a new phenomenon..we have seen burning a part of a constitution as a resentment to hindi imposition, burning of kambaramayan or periapuranam by periyar and annadurai as resistence to their percieved aryan culture and caste discrimination..breaking vinayaka idols has not stopped the mushrooming of ganesh temples and burning ramayan has not prevented it being a part of tamil text book for its excellent diction and sonorous language flows.i
      Even annadurai had to acknowledging the work genius of kamban to erect a statue in comomeration in the world tamil Conference. My point is these gimmicks are meant for attention catching and counterproductive in the long run..it is so insigficant that does not deserve my attention
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      i agree. still i feel that in any dialogue, it is essential to maintain a certian protocol. The Gita or the Ramayana or the Koran should not be burnt as to many simple people it is sacred for all it indicates to them. Manusmriti may be a more specific - I do not know its contents fully.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan
      See..the purpose of incendiarists is not engaging in a worthwhile dialogue where the parties have to follow some agreed protocols..they are keen to whip up passion and anger in the ideological opponents to obtain only a shock value..
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      does it help ?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
  • Ramanan Jagannathan
    Any Smrithi is mutable and there is nothing final about it .
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5y
  • Ananda Ganesh
    I have read Manu Smriti. There is nothing objectionable in it.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      No, that particular shloka is problematic.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      But then the Gita also has a couple here and there.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Ananda Ganesh
      I have read the entire book. It is usually out of context misquotes and misinterpretations that cause negative opinion.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Ananda Ganesh
      I will try to clarify about any of the controversial sloka. Either in manu smriti or in bhagavad gita.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Ananda Ganesh
      If I have misunderstood them as benign, then I will correct my misunderstanding.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Just check the manusmiti shloka ambedkar quoted. it is problematic. but smritis are located in a different time, and need to be adapted and corrected.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Ananda Ganesh
      Ambedkar is a lier and fraud. The one Ambedkar quoted about pouring lead in the ears, etc., does not exist in manu smriti.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Amit Soumya
      Dont use such derogatory language mr anand ganesh. you may be much well read but dont get abusive. contradict ambedkar on what he said or did. this is not the way. poor taste.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 4y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      But I have realised that in educated circles noise, and often rather abusive noise, is what passes for dialogue. One section calls the other libtards and sickulars. The other says chaddi-wallahs. I would cuff them both if I were their school teacher - as it is iI simply clear out from both parties. The average Indian in villages is deeply cultured and civilized, and anyway his framework is neither the rigid Left or Right. The village paradigm suits me.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)