Category Archives: Myth Busters

Opposition to Manu: Why?

During the British period in India some western writers indoctrinatedin Christianity, and having vested interests in the continuance of the BritishEmpire hatched a foolproof conspiracy. They planned to inculcateantipathy in and demolish faith from the minds of Indians towards everything and everyone who traditionally was closely associated with themajesty, magnanimity and magnificence of India. These western writerssucceeded in converting to their views some of the Indians with the help ofthe imperial influence of the British and their divide-and-rule policy.

Macaulay’s educational policy also lent them a helping hand. Such Indiansthen carried on and furthered this anti-Indianism. Thus came up on thescene a group of people who made Maharishi Manu- the first law-giver,and hisManusmriti, the foremost law-book, a target of their slanderouscriticism. Things have come to such a pass that whereas disparaging Manuand decrying his Manusmrition mere hearsay and unsubstantiatedcriticism has become a mission for some sections of the society, it hasbecome a fashion with the English-knowing people in India, and an issuefor winningelections for some political parties. Very queer is the conduct of our politicians in this regard. A few years ago, soon after the split of aparticular political party, the erstwhile progeny of Manu disowned him astheir foremost father and started cursing and condemning him, hisManusmriti and his progeny from the public fora. One of the political partiesstructured a point and program, viz.,Manuvad for grabbing politicalpower. Some years ago when a statue of Manu was installed on the Jaipurpremises ofthe Rajasthan High Court in recognition of his having been thefirst law-giver, some people saw the statue as a potent danger and begansubjecting the lifeless statue to a controversy. The dispute thus created isunder the consideration of that very Hon’ble Court to decide. The fact ofthe matter is that some people regard the opposition to the statue as avery good opportunity to makethe best political capital and are trying to acquire a political identity.

One is amazed to see such peopledisregarding the Manusmriti as they have not even as much as seen the shape and size ofthe book, let alone read it, One day I confronted a person who started slighting the Manusmriti by quoting a couplet from Tulsidas. viz., ‘Dhol, pashu,shudraaurnari …. ‘attributing it in ignorance to Manu asone oftheshlokasauthored by him. It can easily be guessed from this illustration how littlethe slanderers orManu know about him and his Manusmriti.

Laymen apart, even as widely read a man as Dr. Ambedkar is sweptaway in opposition to Manu to such an extent that he sees in every antiShudraact a doing of Manu. He has attributed to Manu the anti-Shudrasayings of even Shankaracharya. And the chaos and confusion created byordinary writers in respect of Manu has a very long account. All this points to a careful and serious study of the Manusmriti hasnot been carried out.

It has been observed that there are three types or people who indulgein deprecating Manu. The first are those who have read Manu throughprejudiced commentaries written in English, and have been brought up in atradition thus developed. Such people are not acquainted with thealterations and interpolations carried out in the ancient Indian literaturethrough the ages. The second are those who have not read side by side theoriginal and the interpolated versions thoughtfully and critically. The thirdare those who have made it a point todisparage Manu on account of somemisgivings, prejudices and worst of all, even vested interests. But the factremains that Maharshi Manu neither as a man nor as a writer deserves tobe condemned. India and Indianism can take pride in him and look big anddignified. 

  1. Manu’s Position in India Maharshi Manu is the first to have given the world a well-regulated,systematized, ethical and ideal pattern of living for human beings. He is thefirst among manavas (one of the human races), the first among scripturewriters,the first among law-makers, law-givers and social philosophers,the pioneer statesman and above all the first sage-ruler. Manu is thereligious teacher who introduced the yajna-rituals. The religious scripturecomposed by him which today is known as the Manusmriti is the oldest of the Smritis. We see in our ancient history and literature right from Vedic agesdown to modem times, a long tradition of those scripture- writers, litterateurs,authors, poets and rulers who have spoken of Manu eulogistically. VedicSamhitas andBrahmanical scriptures describe Manu’s words as efficaciousand beneficent like medicine.
    Maharshi Valmiki in his Ramayanaalludes to Manu as an authority in the field of religious scriptures. Ram,who is worshipped as God by the Hindus, quotes Manu’s verses to provethat his conduct has been in consonance with the directions given in thereligious scriptures. TheMahabharta proclaims at several places thatthe Manusmriti is a tried and tested constitution of life, and alludes to itswriter as the greatest preceptor and jurist. In several of the Puranas Manuhas been embellished with epithets such as the foremost sage-ruler,scripture-writer, etc. and thus has been painted as a person devoted to humanwelfare. Acharya Yaska quotes Manu’s dictum in his Nirukta in thediscussion on equal rights for sons and daughters and thus regards him asauthentic. In the ArthashastraChanakya has quoted Manu as an authority.Brihaspati, a writer of one of the Smritis regards the Manusmriti asthe most authentic document and proclaims other Smritis controvertingManu’s as unacceptable. Ashwaghosh, the Buddhist poet, quotes Manu’sdicta in his work Vajrakopnishad as evidence. Yajnavalalkya’sSmritiis based on the Manusmriti itself. All religious books and Smritis quoteManu’s words in support of the contentions contained in them. Dharsen,the king ofValabhi has declared Manuism as an authentic creed as per apetrograph of 571 A.D. DaraShikoha, the writer-son of Emperor ShahJehan describes Manu as the first and original human whom Jews,Christians and Mohammedans call Adam. GuruGovind Singh has showeredliberal eulogies on Manu in his book entitled ‘DashamGrantha’.

MaharshiDayanand, the founder of the Arya SamajacceptsManusmriti as an authority second only to the Vedas. Shri Aurobindoregards Manu as a semi-god. Shri RabinderNath Tagore, Dr. RadhaKrishanan, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and many other national leaders have made mention of Manu in their writings as the first law-giver. A numberof jurists such as Justice A.N. Mullah, N.Raghavacharya and others haveacknowledged Manu’s set of laws as an authority. Keeping only this widelyacknowledged recognition of Manu in mind Pt. Nehru and people at largeembellished Dr. Ambedkar with the epithet ‘Modem Manu’ while presenting the Constitution of India to the LokSabha. Also, while unveiling the statue ofDr. Ambedkar, ShriR.Venkataraman, the then President of Indiaadded to the grandeur of the former’s personality by calling him “Modern Manu.”

  1. Manu’s Recognition Overseas

 Manu’s position and prestige, his magnanimity and magnificence and the extent of his influence overseas have not been any the less thanthese have been in India. The encyclopediasbrought out by the British,Americans and Germans describe Manu as the foremost among humans,as the first law-giver, as the pioneer jurist and social philosopher.Upholding Manu’s beliefs Max Mueller, A.A. Macdonnel, A.B. Keith,P.Thomas, Louis Renoy and other western writers regard the Manusmritinot only as a religious book but also a law book and describe the lawsgiven therein as universal in application and beneficial toall mankind. Sir William Jones, a judge in the Indian Supreme Court at one time learntSanskrit to have first-hand study of the Manusmriti on having realizedthe scripture’s indispensability in arriving at judgments in respect of somedisputes of Indians. He even edited the Manusmriti. The famousGerman Philosopher, FrederichNeitsche has gone to the extent of sayingthat ‘the Manusmriti is superior to the Bible as a scripture; in fact,according to him ‘It is a sin to compare the Manusmriti with the Bible’.

Books like ‘The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences’ brought out in the USA,The Cambridge History oflndia’, Keith’s ‘History of Sanskrit Literature’,A History ofDharma Shastra’ by Bharat Ratna P.Y. Kane, Dr. Satyaketu’s’DakshinPurviAurDakshin Asia Mein BhartiyaSanskriti’ (India Culturein South East and South Asia) and other similar books contain a vivid anddetailed description of the extent of the influence of the Manusmriti.These readings can make every Indian feel puffed with pride at thecountry’s ancient heritage.

We come to learn from the history of, and the petrography found onthe island of Bali, Burma, Philippines, Thailand, Champa (Vietnam), Cambodia(Kampuchea), Indonesia, Malaysia, Ceylon, Nepal etc. that varna systembased on people’s profession as propounded in Manu’s scripture has beenpractised in these countries. Paramount importance was given to the lawsenunciated by Manu, and judgements were doled out accordingly. A numberof verses of the Manusmriti have been found inscribed in the form ofpetrographs. Kings and emperors used to take pride incalling themselvesthe disciples or followers of Manu, and would feelelevated by adding oneor the other label of Manuism to their name. According to an inscriptionfound in Champa (Vietnam) Raja Jai InderVarmadeva was a follower ofManuism. According to another inscription found in UdayanVarma’s’SadokKakthom’ there is a mention of a book entitled ‘ManavNeetisar’ which isbased on the Manusmriti.ln one ofYashovarman’s inscriptions found inPrasatKompan we find quoted a verse. i.e.2.1.36 from the Manusmriti.In one of the inscriptions of Raja Jayavanna there is a mention of ministerwho was well-versed in the Manusmriti. In Bali island Manu’s socialsystem is still being practiced,the code of conduct and the constitutions ofthe aforementioned countries were and still are largely based on theManusmriti. The Philippines believe that Manu’s Smriti and another Smritiauthored by Laotse have contributed a lot to the making of their country’scode of conduct. It is in recognition of their contribution that the statues ofthe two have been installed at the gate of the legislature of that country.Howsoever much Manu may be disparaged and deprecated therelationship that has been built between us and Manu can never be undone.We can never break offwith Manu; can never put him in abeyance so longas this human society and its history are intact.Indian society regards Manu as their original ancestor as is testifiedin the country’s ancient literature. All humans are the progeny of Manu. Itis for this reason that all words meaning’man’, such as manushy, manuj,manav, manusb, have originated from the word Manu. So the writer ofthe Nirukta says while giving an etymology of these words ‘मनो: अपत्यम मनुष्य: (3-4). This means that we are calledManushya for we are theprogeny of Manu. The statement ‘मानव्य: प्रजा:  in the Brahmanicalscriptures alsotestifies the same fact. The European scholars havephilologically proved that there was a time when Europe, Iran and Indiansub-continent were the members of one ethnic group. The wordsconnoting man in the languages of these regions are all derivatives of wordsoriginated from Manu, e.g., minos in Greek and Latin, mann in German.manna in Spanish, man, manis, manus, manes, etc., in English and itsdialects, nuh {with स (s) मनुस . (manus) changed into ह: (h) and म (m)getting dropped} in Iranian Persian. This fact is testified in the historicalwritings and inscriptions of these countries. Iranians regard themselves asAryans even today and believe Saptasindhu country to be the place oftheir origin. Cambodians (Kampucheans) regard themselves as the progenyof Manu. The inhabitants of Thailand consider themselves to be thedescendants of Ram who belonged to the Suryavanshi clan. Both Ramand Krishan belong to Manu’s lineage. On having read this account wecan say that no other scripture-writer or law-giver has been accorded ashigh a place or pride and prestige as Manu.

  1. Accusations hurled at Manu and theManusmriti

Now let usconsider the charges levelled against Manu and theManusmriti which can broadly be classified in three categories:-

  1. Manu built up a caste system based on birth.
  2. In his social system whereas he made partisan and even inhuman laws for the Shudras. He gave privileges to Savarnas (thehigh-born, particularly the Brahmanas. Thus Manu was anti-Shudra.

iii. Manu was anti-woman. He did not allow women equal rights with men. Also Manu has spoken rather disparagingly of women.To answer these charges it will be fitting to citeevidence and examples from the Manusmriti itself rather than quoteinstances and adduce proofs from outside. A few observations are made below on the basis of some conclusionsdrawn from the Manusmriti.


  1. Based on merit, profession and potentiality Manu’s system has Vedic origins:-

The varna system propounded in the Manusmriti is based on anindividual’s profession, his merits and capabilities and has Vedic origins.This system finds its mention originally in three of the Vedas, viz, Rigveda(10.90.11-12), Yajurveda (31. 10-11) and Atharvaveda (19.6.506), Manuconsiders the Vedas to be of axiomatic status in religious matters. So,regarding the Varnasystem as a system propounded and sanctioned by the Vedas and considering it to be the basis of righteousness, Manu includes it in his system of administration, and disseminates his plan through hisscripture.

  1. Varna system and castsystem as contrastingsystems:-

The determining factors in Manu’s Vedic Varna system are merits,vocation and capabilities rather than the birth of a human. Here it isessential to understand thatthe varna system and caste system arecontradictory propositions. Neither of these systemscan sustain itself whereas the other is being practiced and thus the presence of one rules out the other. The basic difference between the two can easily be understood ifwe appreciate the etymological difference of the two words. In the varnasystem it is the varna (an individual’s vocation) which is the decidingfactor whereas in the caste system it is the parentage which is of crucialimportance. Inter-changeable use of the two words is highly misleading.

The word Varna is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root ‘वृज वरने ‘ whichmeans the vocation which is chosen. Acharya Yaska clarifies theconnotation of his word in his Nirukta as follows:

वर्ण: वृनोते (2· 14) meaning thereby the word ‘Varna’ has something todo with the choice/the selection (of vocation/profession here), whereas the word ‘Jati’ has something todo with Janma:, (birth). The word jati hasbeen used as a synonym for janma (birth) and not caste as is illustratedbelow:

जाति अंध बधिरौ :blind and deaf by birth

जातिम  स्मरति पौर्वीकीम :remembers his previous birth.

द्विजाति :because he is believed to be born twice.

एकजाति :Shudrabecause he has only one birthand does not have the second which  is believed to take place on beinginitiated into the study-period. As per vedicvarna system the society is to be divided into fourclasses, viz,Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. As long aspeople kept on choosing one of these vocational groups on the basis ofmerit-cum-profession-cum-ability the system kept on being called VarnaVyavastha (class system). However, when birth or parentage began todetermine if one wasa Brahmana oraShudra, etc., it came to be called JatiVyavastha (caste system). An etymological study of the word Varnawhichis formed from a Sanskrit verbal root and a suffix added to it, onlyindicates that when the system(i.e. Varna Vyavastha)come into being theVarna (vocation) was selected on the basis of the concerned individual’smerit-cum-profession – cum-ability and not acquired on account of hisparentage.

  1. No mention ofpresent-day castes and sub castes in Manu’s Varna system:

That Manu has made a mention of only four varnas and or nocastes or sub-castes is conclusive proofin support of the fact that Manu’svamavyavastha was based on vocation and performance and not on birth.

Two facts are evident from it. One, there were nocastes based on parentage during Manu’s times. Two, parentage or gotra(sub-caste) wasof no consequence in varna-vyavastha and one would not acquire a varna(vocation) on this basis. Ifduring Manu’s times birth had been the basis fordetermining varna or if there had been castes or sub-castes Manu wouldcertainly have enumerated them and also pointed out which of thembelonged to the Brahmana community and which to the Shudra community and soon and so forth. How much disregard Manu had for birth-basedaggrandizement is known from that verse in the Manusmtiti in which amention has been made with derogatory epithets like ‘Vantashi’ (one whoeats his vomit) for those who eulogised someone for his lineage orparentage (3- 109). Besides, in Manu mention had been made of anindividual’s virtues and good deeds only and not of his clan, caste or kinshipwhile showing respectfulness and reverence to him.

  1. Purpose ofManusmritidefeated if birth-based castes accepted:

The very purpose of the composition ofthe Manusmriti would bedefeated if we accepted Manu to be a believer in castes on the basis ofbirth because the scripture has assigned different tasks to different varnas

(classes). If a person were to be a Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudraby birth he would remain in the same varna whether or not he performed the tasks allocated to that varna. The very fact that Manu has assigneddifferent roles to different varna only proves that he approves of vocationand not of birth as the basis of varnavyavastha.

  1. Provision for change of Varna in Varna Vyavastha.

There is a very basic difference between the varnavyavastha andthe caste system. It is that there is a provision for change of varna in varnavyavastha. An important verse from the Manusmritidispelling all the doubtsin this respect is being quoted as all evidence:-


Manu says in this verse that a Brahmana becomes a Shudra andvice versa on the basis of one’s merits, actions and abilities. Similarly suchan interchange also takes place between Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

  1. Change of Varna on neglecting prescribedduties:

There are dozens of verses in the Manusmriti which speak of provisionsfor downgrading Brahmanas to the class of Shudras on account of the former neglecting their prescribed duties and indulging in deeds ofdebased nature (See 2/37, 40, 103, 168; 4/245 etc.) and for upgradingShudras to higher varnas consequent upon their undertaking tasks of noblernature (See 9/335).

  1. Varna vyavastha practiced up to the Mahabharta period:

The aforementioned proofs and arguments make it abundantly clearthat in Manu’s social system all people had equal rights to join any of thevarnas according to their merits and vocations, irrespective of theirparents’profession. This system continued from Rigvedic period until Mahabharata(Geeta) period, The Geeta clearly says:

चातुर्वर्ण्यंमयासृष्टंगुणकर्मविभागशः।।(4- 13)।।

The chaturvaranya (the four-class system) has been created on thebasis of people’s vocations and merits and not on their birth and parentage.

  1. Change of Varna: Examples in history:

Hundreds of examples from Indian history can be cited in supportof the fact that Varna Vyavastha is based on an individual’s vocation andaction, and has nothing to do with his birth.

  1. KavashAilush, a son of a slave-woman, and Vatsa, a son ofa Shudra-woman became Rigvedic Rishis for their having become seersof Mantras (exponents of vedic hymns).

ii Raja Vishvamitra who- was born of Kshatriya parentsbecame a Brahmarshi.

iiiSatyakamJabal whose birth and lineage are unknownbecameBrahmavadi Rishi (an exponent of the highest reality, Brahma)

  1. Matanga who was born in a Chandalfamily came to be called a Rishi…
  2. Valmiki who (according to some legends) was lowly-born acquired the fame which goes with the name of Maharishi Valmiki.
  3. Slavewoman’sson, Vidur, became the primeministerof Raja Dhritarashtra and came to be known as a Mahatma.

vii. Shri Ram, a son of King Dashratha, and Shri Krishna, born in a Yadav family, came to be regarded as God. They became venerableeven for the Brahmanas their birth in a Kshatriya family notwithstanding.

viii. On the other hand, Ravana who was born in the clan of Pulastya Rishi came to be called a         ‘demon’ for indulging in evil deeds.

  1. Raghu, the ancestor of Rama, had a son named Pravridha. He was outcast from the Kshatriya clan due to his misdeeds and misdemeanor and became a demon.
  2. Trishanku, originally a king became a Chandal.
  3. Many of Vishwamitra’s sons came to be called Shudras.
  1. The whole community acquiring a new varna.

Besides individuals we also come across examples of a whole community or a large part of it leaving its earlier varna and acquiring a new one. Some verses in the Mahabharta and the Manusmriti, with, of course some variations in the text reveal that some of the communities were Kshatriyas earlier but with the negligence of their duties, and for their not having undertaken penance to atone for their omissions and commission seven when so required by the Brahmanas, degenerated into being enlisted among the Shudras.


पारदापह्लवाश्चीनाःकिरातादरदाःखशाः।।(10-43, 44)


Meaning: Owing to their having neglected their prescribed duties and not having undertaken penance even on being advised to do so by the Brahmanas some of the Kshatriya communities which came to be called Shudras were:Paundraka, Audra, Dravida, Kamboja, Yavana, Shaka, Parada, Pahalva,Cheena, Kirata, Darada, and Khasha. In addition to these some othercommunities that find a mention in the same context in the Mahabharta(Ch. 35. 17-18)are: Mekala, Lata, Kanvashira, Shaundika, Darva, Chaura,Shabara and Barbar.

Examples of change of varna are found until much later history. According to J. Wilson and I·LL. Rose the Pakharana or PushkamaBrahmanas of Rajputana, Sindh and Gujarat, and Pathak and MahavarRajputas of Aamtara in the Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh were upgraded 10 higher classes consequent upon change ofvarna (see Hindi EncyclopaediaPart 4.).

 The secret ofidentical sub-castes in all the four varnas:

The identical surnames found among Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Dalitas are a firm proof not only indicating the existence of long family traditions but also showing that the members of all communities are descendants of the same one original family. Peopleinthe beginning chose a particular varna on the basis of their merits,performance and potentialities and later on came to be regarded as members of the same varna. In the times that were to come their varna in case of some, was upgraded, and in case of others downgraded forvarious reasons. For example, in some areas the people of Brahmana community continued to remain Brahmanas whereas in others they became Ksharriyas and in yet others, Shudras. During the course of time a rigid social system developed and parentage and birth became the bases of a person’s categorization which came to be called caste.

  1. The basic elements in varnavyavastha

The basic elements of varnavyavastha as propounded in the Manusmriti are merits, vocation and capabilities, Manu does not attachany importance to an individual as such or to the varna to which hebelongs, but to the aforesaid attributes. Where these attributes abound onthe positive side the individual and his varna are accorded greater respect and reverence. Where they are in a low measure or are on the negative side the individual and his varna are given a lower recognition. Even till today no civilized system has been able to negate the elements constituting Manu’s,varnavyavastha nor is any likely to do so in future. Negating these is sure to lead to injustice and consequent discontent, protests,mismanagement and ultimately to anarchy. Such a situation is describedidiomatically in Hindi as: ‘Treating the donkey at a par with the horse’, and’driving all with the same stick’.


As a result of such a situation no country or society can progress and prosper, be happy, contented or peacefully remain disciplined,systematised or even unified. In fact such an arrangement can not be sustained for too long. Even the communistic pattern of society or government, which wears by the principle of equality for all, has not been able to ignore the elements so basic to Manu’s system. Even in that system we have public posts and social positions being given to individuals after taking intoconsideration their merits, duties and capabilities which further determinetheir perks, status and salary structure.


If we carry out a comparative analysis of the present dayadministrative and business set-up vis-a-vis the one conceived by Manuwe shall be able to see clearly the essential similarities between the two.There are four classes in the administrative hierarchy of the government,ii. Class I Gazettedofficers ii. Class II Gazettedofficers iii. Class IIIand Class IV employees. Among them the first two men are of the officer-cadre and the rest are karamcharis (workers). The basis of this classification isan individual’s potentialitiesand capabilities, and theduties assigned to him.And these very things determine the privilegesstatus and importancegiven to him. In earlier times, the possession of particular types ofpotentialities and capabilities by an individual was certified by theacademic institutions (The Gurukulas, the Ashramas and the Acharyasof the institutions) much on the same lines as is being done today (byschools. colleges. universities, etc.). In the absence of any suchcertification a semi- educated or anuneducated person has to undertake amenial job or physical labour and such a person is put in the last categoryofservice. In earlier times also a person who would not go to a teacher for acquiring knowledge or a particular skill used to undertake a job of asimilar nature and was categorized as a Shudra which means a man of alow position, a message-bearer, etc. One can easily see how similar to theword ‘Shudra’ are the connotations of words like ‘Naukar’, ‘Chakar’. ‘Sevak’, ‘Preshya’ (a message bearer), ‘servant’, orderly’, ‘a low class employee’etc.


There is not much difference between the systems of allotment ofvocation as it exists today and as it was practiced earlier. In both the casesone is permitted to practice a profession such as medicine, law or teachingonly on the acquisition of a relevant degree or diploma or certification, andnot without it. Rules and duties for all jobs are prescribed which if violatedwill entail removal from the position held by a person.


  1. Practical opportunities for Shudras to change their varna


There are some people who have considered themselves Shudrasand for some reasons are still labouring under this erroneous impressionand thus keeping themselves deprived of human rights. The Arya Samaj regards Manu as a religious preceptor and is an ardent follower ofthe principles and systems enunciated by Manu openly invites them to getinitiated into any of the varnas they qualify for, and thus offers themconcrete opportunities to change their varna. Long before the present-dayconstitution of India came into force MaharshiDayanand declared in thelight of the dicta ofManusmriti that untouchability, notions of inequalityamong humans,casteism, denial of education to women and to those of Shudra parents, child marriage, unmatched marriage, polygamy,practice of sati system and social and economic exploitation were greatsocial evils. He also carried on a crusade against these evils. The AryaSamaj has set up gurukulas and schools some of which are exclusivelyfor women. The children born of so-called Shudra-parents have been admitted to these educational institutions. With the result hundreds ofDalitseducated there have become scholars of Sanskrit, Vedas and other holy scriptures. Why do Dalitas forget that in order to abolish untouchability numerous followers of Manu and disciplesofRishi Dayanand themselvesbecame untouchables in the eyes of the society, and yet they didn’t yield and carried on the struggle? Dalit writers who are ignorant of these developmentssee the Arya Samaj with coloured glasses. Does thisnot amountto ingratitude on their part?


  1. A correct appraisal of the system


Manu belongs to antiquity. Although the model values of life,ethical proprieties and true form of religion described by Manu are ofuniversal nature some of the provisions made by him arealterable to suit the particular place, time and the situation. The social system which Manu took as a modeland advocated for adoption was of the bestkind during his time. This iswhy that system has been the most widely acceptedand has lasted forthousands of years. During the course of the time some of the arrangementsin that system lost their original nature and became deformed. Todaypolitical and social conditions have changed. Democracy has replacedmonarchy. Many social systemsand traditions have also changed with thepassage of time. But this does not imply that our ancient values havebecome completely unacceptable things to look down upon. If that wereour line of thinking everything connected with our ancient magnificence such as our great men, heroic personages, poets, authors, cities, holy places,monuments, buildings, literature, history, etc. all would become detractable. To carry out a proper appraisal the system a person or a thing has to beevaluated in thecontext of the situations prevailing at the time to which itbelongs.


  1. Maharishi Manu and DrAmbedkar


  1. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar has been the chief carrier ofthe traditionof opposing Manu, and also the main source of inspiration toanti Manuism today. It is true that as a result of birth-based casteism,inequality and untouchability practiced in society Dr. Ambedkarwas subjected to a series of acts of slight and injustice, inequitabletreatment and some consequently nightmarish experiences. It is also truethat any self-respecting educated person would have reacted along thesame lines as did Dr. Ambedkar. And yet it is also true that the treatmentmeted out toManu byDrAmbedkaron the basis of the prejudice he had nursedagainst the former and without a correct and complete understanding ofhis ideas was also an act of extreme injustice and hence uncalled for.Being a legal luminary, he is all the more to be arraigned for this excess.He provided in the constitution that in no case should an innocent personbe punished even if it leads to the acquittal of the culprit. But he himselfdidnot observe this principle in respect of Manu in his pronouncements. Heimputed to Manu a kind of social systembased on birth and parentagewhich in fact was the creation of a society subsequent to Manu’s times,and kept on accusing Manu unjustifiably and even carried on a vilificationcampaign against him. He also used extremely bitter and unpalatable wordsfor a Maharishi who is held in high esteem in the Aryan (Hindu) society.Dr. Ambedkar’s attention was repeatedly invited to the fact that he hadseveral misconceptions and biased opinions about Manu and that he shouldclear them. But he persisted in his prejudices. There were several reasonsfor this insistence. Perhaps he did not want to retract on what he hadalready written on Manu. In his own words ‘I may seem hard on Manu,but I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill his ghost’. And it is truethat the ‘ghost’ was never shed and was infact bequeathed to his followerson his death. But the big question is: Can the appraisal which flows out ofa haunted mind be called nominal, balanced. well- considered and correct?


That Dr. Ambcdkar did not know Sanskrit language is a1so a fact ofhis life. He himself admits that he had acquired knowledge on Manu andthe Manusmriti from the critiques and analysis ofManu written in Englishlanguage. Naturally, therefore, he could not takeinto account some aspectsof Manu such as the original text and the interpolations in the Manusmriti,the perspectives in which a verse has been written, etc. The learned Doctoracquired opinions and built his own views on the basis of his readings ofbiased commentaries in English. No research had been carried out on the interpolations in the Manusmriti till the times ofAmbedkar. So hedid notcome across any man or material to guide him andexplain the original fromthe subsequent motivated insertions. If these reasons had not existed hewould have perhaps not spoken so ill of Manu and the Manusmriti.


15.A statement and discussion of some of the basic beliefs ofDr. Ambedkar on Manu’s Vedic Varna system appear to be necessary soas to carry out a critical appraisal of these beliefs and also to acquire a new proofto support the contentions made in this write-up. He writes:-


* One thing I want to impress upon is that Manu did not give thelaw of caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu.(Caste in India, P.16)

*It is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the theoryofChaturvamyain what is known as the Purushsukta. (Philosophy of Hinduism, P.25)

* Manu may not be responsible for the creation of caste. Manupreached the sanctity of the Varna and as I have shown varna is the parentof caste. In that sense Manu can be charged with being the progenitor if notthe author of the caste system. (Philosophy of Hinduism, P.25)

* I must admit that the Vedic theory ofvarnas as interpreted by SwamiDayanand and some others is sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did notadmit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place ofan individual insociety. It only recognized worth. (Annihilation of Caste, P.92-93)

* The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of acalling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. (Annihilation ofCaste, P.92)

* The Principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from theprinciple underlying varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. (Annihilation of Caste, P.92)


  1. Dr. Ambedkar accepts unequivocally that varna system has its origin in the Vedas, that it has been handed down by the Vedas, thatManu is only an advocate of this system and not its creator, that the Vedicvarna system is logical and not at all despicable in as much as it is based onan individual’s merits, vocation and capabilities, that the Varna system and the caste system are contradictory in nature and that Manu is not thecreator of the caste system. Thus as per Ambedkar’s own admissions,Manu stands absolved of the charges of being the creator of either thecaste system or even the varna system. He being an advocate of thevarna system cannot be charged with being a supporter of the birth-basedcaste system. If varna system is ‘sensible’ and ‘inoffensive’ Manu hasdone only the desirable and nothing wrong by supporting andstrengthening the system. Manu, being a follower of Vedic faith, regardsthe Vedas and their postulates as axiomatic. Then it is no sin that hedisseminates the good provisions and principles of his religion ascommanded by the Holy Scriptures upholding this faith. Followers of allfaiths do likewise. After having converted to Buddhism Dr. Ambedkaralso disseminated Buddhist beliefs. Ifhe isjustified in doing so, Manu toois. It is surprising that even after having made admissions (which figureabove in his own words) Dr. Ambedkar detracts Manu every step of the way by holding him responsible for the caste system. How far is it justifiedto impute to Manu the creation of social systems which came into beinglong after him, and speak bitterly of him on this basis?


About 80 amendments have been carried out in the IndianConstitution in the 46 years of its existence, some of which violates the spirit of the constitution such as the one prolonging the use of Englishas an official language, the one seeking removal of the provision of givingsubsistence allowance to Muslim women, etc. Can Dr. Ambedkar be heldresponsible for these amendments and the amendments yet to come? Ifnot, how can Manu beheld responsible for the evil and depraved systemwhich developed and came to be practised long after him.


  1. Dr. Ambedkar believes that thevarna system has given rise to thecaste system and since Manu advocated the varna system he is to blame forthe caste system. What an odd and offensive argument! Just in tune withthe caste system itself. It amounts to saying that if someone does notobserve shraddha he will go to hell alongwith his forefathers of sixgenerations only because the latter have been the forefathers of the former. Also, ifsomeone observes shraddha his six earlier generations will crossover to heaven as they are his begetters. Much on the same lines since thecaste system isan evil system so the system immediately preceding it (i.e.the varna system), should also be an evil one.


What is surprising is that a legalluminary should be leveling seriouscharges against a law giver. Dr. Ambedkar has nowhere provided in theConstitution of India that whilepunishing a culprit his parents, grandparents and ancestors should also be declared guilty only because theyhave begotten him. Only if Dr. Ambedkar had made a provision in theconstitution that people could also be declared guilty, punished andexterminated fortheir misdeeds in the past, ifnot in all cases, at least in thecase of some matters relating to nationalism! It would have gratified atleast those nationalists who believe that on the attainment of freedom thosepeople who had indulged in treason against the cause of freedom, who hadcollaborated with the imperialistic foreign rulers, who had indulged in actsof espionage and had sent the patriots to thegallows, should have been declaredoffenders and punished. The traitors to the national cause led a happy andbountiful life in the days of foreign rule by having been favoured withlanded property, pelf and position. And they or their progeny even nowcontinue to do so.



*the references are to government of Maharashtra publication of DrAmbedkar’s writings and speeches, 1979.


On the other hand the freedom fighters are going aboutfrom pillar to post on the look-out of even the basic amenities of life. Suchcharity towards treachery and such indifference towards patriotism havehardly ever been shown in any other case of a transfer of power or a changeofgovernment! If the treacherous people had been punished it would havetaught them a lesson and in turn it would have been in the larger interestofnational integrity, unity and freedom.


  1. Manu is being held responsible for the varna system havingdegenerated later into the caste system as if Manu had been in the foreknowledgeof this degeneration, and had consciously advocated the varna systemwith a dubious design! Dr. Ambedkar is the creator of the presentconstitutional system ofIndia. But, did he know at the time of the creationof this constitution what system of government might spring from it in thefuture due to unforeseen developments? No, not at all. Similarly Manualso did not know what shape the varna system would take in the times thatwere to come.


  1. Dr.Ambedkar is the creator and a staunch advocate of thecurrent constitutional provisions which are free from caste prejudices. Ifunfortunately, consequent upon some changes for some unforeseenreasons, the Indian constitution acquires a casteist bias hundreds of yearshence will Dr. Ambedkar be responsible for that?At that time everyreasonable person will say at the top of his voice, ”No, No. Ambedkar isanti-casteist. Why should he be labelled as the author of the caste-basedsystem?” When obviously the caste-system is at variance with the varnasystem how can Manu be dubbed as the creator of the caste system? Sothe charge that Manu was the father of the caste system cannot besustained and hence stands rebutted. The fact of the matter is that asubsequent society is the creator of the evil caste system and that verysociety is to blame for its subsistence and sustenance.


  1. Dr. Ambedkar states that Manu ‘did not give the law of casteand that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu’ (Caste inIndi a, P. 16). Thus Ambedkar himself admits that Manu is responsibleneither for the creation of the caste system nor for the society practicing it.This implies that varna system was already in vogue and the society hadcome to accept it before Manu. This system was after people’s hearts. It hadbeen universally accepted as the best system at that time. It was notimposed by Manu on society. How then is Manu responsible for thesystem which society had already accepted and was practising? AsDr. Ambedkar had advocated a system acceptable to people so had Manualso promoted the varnasystem which had been liked by the people, thenthere is hardly any justificationleft for holding Manu guilty.


  1. No system in the world is fully flawless and acceptablewithout reservation. So there is no justification at all in subjecting the wholeof Hindu religion to insulting criticism in the context of the evil caste systemwhich developed long after Manu and other Hindu social philosophers.Are all the constitutional provisions of today which boast ofbeingjust andfair, really perfect? As a matter of fact they are highly controversial,modern senseof equitability notwithstanding. Reservation for the weakersection has been provided as warranted by the present day requirements,and yet it is being violently questioned. Hundreds of years hence when theworking of the present system is recorded in history ignoring the current perspectives it is certain that the sections of the society enjoying privilegesof reservation now will be painted in the same colourBrahmanas arcbeing painted today in the context of ancient holy scriptures.


As per present constitutional provisions appointments to almost allpublic posts from the highest to the lowest have to be made on the basisofdegrees and diplomas, and performance at competitive examinations andinterviews. Nominations are made to certain posts. In only a few years ofthe coming into being ofthecurrent constitution things have come to sucha pass that the yardstick of merit is ignored with impunity and the relativesand recommendees of political leaders and officers in power alone aremostly nominated to administrative posts in utter disregard of anindividual’s merits. Interviews are supposed to be held to measure a jobseekersworth. However,jobs go not to the worthy but to the recommendeesor to those who can afford to purchase these positions. Selection listsquashed by the courts bear a testimony to it. Merit is the first casualty incase of appointments to political posts. Nepotism and favouritism are theorder of the day in this respect. Imagine a situation, which is a possibility,that some centuries hence the present constitutional arrangements getdegenerated into arrangements the basis of which becomes birth andparentage rather than the deserts of an individual. Will Dr. Ambedkar andthe constituent assembly of which he was a member be responsible for that degenerated form of things? Will anybody be justified in calling thearrangements given by him and theconstituent assembly responsible forthat degraded and decayed system? If not, Manu can also not be calledthe father of the caste system and can’t be held responsible for thesubsequenterosion of the social system he pleaded for.


  1. A more thoughtless and dangerous statement by Dr. Ambedkaris: If you wish to bring about a breach in the system then you have got toapply dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras (Annihilation ofCaste).


On the one hand Dr. Ambedkar believes that Vedas do not advocatethe caste system, and instead pleads only for the varna system which he believesto be logical and not despicable, it being a system based on an individual’smerits and performance. On the other he makes a highly improper andprovocative statement urging for the torching nay dynamiting, of the Vedas.How paradoxical the statements are! He has given a call for theextermination of and a complete dissociation with the Vedas, the holyShastras, the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Geeta. These holy scriptures provide a basis to and are a source ofinspiration for all good values oflife such as righteousness, inquisitiveness, literary and culturalexcellences, civilized and good conduct. Exterminationof the holy scriptures amounts to the demolition of Hindu (Aryan) civilization,culture, religion,et al.


Did Dr. Ambedkar have this as a target in mind? If Dr. Ambedkarhad felt distressed and afflicted in the Hindu fold and had wanted to be outof it, he could have jolly well renounced this faith, walk out of it and lived on as afree man withoutjoiningany particular religious community. But he couldnot, infact, do this without taking recourse to some religious faith either. Consequently he joined the Buddhist fold and came to regard the Buddhist scriptures as the carriers of ultimate truth·- this all in contrast to his callfor the renunciation of Hinduism and Hinduscriptures! Here I would like to refer to aquestion put by Mahatma Gandhi (to Dr. Ambedkar) who wantedto know how one could be a Hindu by disowning the Vedas and Shastras when nobody could be a Muslim by rejecting the Quran and nobody couldbe aChristian by rejecting the Bible.The thinking ofAmbedkar can be compared with the thinking thatsuggests that instead of treating the boils of a diseased person the patienthimselfshould be exterminated.


  1. There is not even a remotely suggestive mention of the castesystemin the Vedas. Dr. Ambedkar admits this. Even so he has criticizedthe Vedas without justification on other counts. He has talked ofexterminating the Vedas rather than acknowledging their worth. Even onhaving converted to Buddhism he continued to deprecate the Vedas andthus defied his preceptor, the Buddha and the Buddhist scriptures in asmuch as they speak very highly of the Vedas and of those who are well-versed in the Vedas, and thus affirm their importance. Here are somequotes in support of this contention.


“विद्वा च वेदेहि समेच्च धम्मम्

न उच्चावचं गच्छति भूरिपज्वो”(Suttanipata – 292)


Mahatma Buddha says ‘The scholar who acquires the knowledgeof righteousness from the Vedas never wavers in life.’


(b)विद्वा च सो वेदगू नरो इध, भवाभवे संगं इमं विसज्जा |

सो वीतदण्हो अनिंघो निरासो अतारि सो जातिं जरोति ब्रूमीति ||(Suttanipata – 1060)


The scholar who bears the knowledge of the Vedas gets disinterestedin life and becomes indifferent to death, becomes devoid of desiresand yearning, and thus having become aimless gets disentangled from thevicious circle of life and death. (other verses supporting the idea inSuttanipata are: 322.458,503,846. I059, etc.)


  1. Dr. Bhadanta Ananda Kausalayana, carrying forward theanti-Manu tradition promoted by Dr. Ambedkar detracts Manu only forthe sake of detracting in his book entitled ‘National Duty’. His thesis in thisbook is shallow in as much as there is neither any logic nor any appealinganalysis. An attempt has been made here to prove bad even what isundoubtedly good through misinterpretation and lopsided presentation.Whereas he resents uncharitable remarks about women made by Manu(ashe believes)he also appears to beanguishedat why the word Pujarha=’worth worshipping’ has been used for women. This amounts to taking thestand: ‘Heads, I win; tails, you lose’. He presents himself as a greatparadox. He is an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and yet does not accept hisprecepts. He is a Buddhist and yet does not acknowledge the importanceof the Vedas and those who possess the knowledge of the Vedas, as hasbeen made out in the Buddhist literature. He took pride in proclaiminghimself as a non-Hindu (non-Vedic).


  1. All anti-Manu writers have made certain identical remarkswhich make a biased and lopsided appraisal ofthe Manusmriti. They havenot quoted those verses which, being in consonance with the topic in thecontext, are, beyond any controversy, regarded as from the original text.These are the verses which carry charitable and amiable remarks aboutwomen and Shudras. On the other hand, these writers have decried anddisparaged Manu by quoting those verses which are doubtlessly regardedas interpolations. These writers have not cared to resolve the question whythere should be in the same context clearly self-contradictory statements.


And another relevant question is: Why should they have quoted only thecontroversial statements ignoring others? In fact, if these writers had caredto discuss this issue they would have automatically come across the answerto the question. In that case there would have been left no reason forresentment and consequent protest. Instead, a number of misgivings couldhave been avoided.


  1. The position of the Shudras in the Manusmriti


Now let us address ourselves to the most discussed and the mostcontroversial topic regarding the Manusmriti, viz, the position of theShudras as described in the Manusmriti. If we glance even cursorily at the evidence available within the Manusmriti itself we arrive at somebasic and important facts which indicate what Manu’s attitude towards theShudras was.


  1. The Dalits and the Backwards of Today are not among the Shudras.


Nowhere does the Manusmriti talk of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes of today asbeing the Shudras. Manu has giventhe world the varna system, and he determines the varna of a man not onthe basis of his parentage but on the basis of his merits, vocation and capabilities. This is the reason why no community or vocation as such has been included in the Shudra category. The subsequent societies andlater-day system- givers were the ones who named certain varnas and vocations asbelonging to the Shudra category. Some people of unfounded misgivingsare imputing this later development to Manu. Subsequentsocietieswere and are responsible for the degenerated systems but Manu is the one being lashed out at! What asense ofjusticeon the part of the representatives oftheDalits!



  1. Manu’s Definition of Shudranot Applicable to present-dayDalits.


The present day Dalits and Backwards cannot be included in the Shudra category as per definition ofShudra given by Manu. According to him those who have, besides their normal birth, also a second birth calledBrahmajanma {Which takes place on being initiated into receivingeducation at the feet of the teacher for acquiring awareness of the higherreality'(Brahma)} are called dvijas (twice-born), i.e., the Brahmanas,Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Those who do not have the Brahmajanma andthus have only one birth are called Shudras. This means that a child whogoes to his teacher at the time prescribed for receiving education in theVedas and other knowledge passed down orally (with all the formal religious ceremonies performed)and also for receiving training pertinent tohis varna,  is born a second time.


This Vidyajanma which has been called Brahmajanma in the holyscriptures is his second birth, However, a child who deliberately or on account of being a dullard or being incapacitated to acquire education and training in any of the three dvijavarnas remain ekjati which means theone having only one birth, a mere natural or Shudra. Besides, the man who, despite having received education and training in anyone of the threehigh varnas does not carry out the prescribed duties and obligations of thatvarna, also becomes a Shudra (See Manusmriti: 2-126,169,170, 72,10-4. etc.)


A couple of quotes from the Manusmriti as evidence to this effectmerit our attention:-


(a) ब्राह्मणःक्षत्रियोवैश्यस्त्रयोवर्णा:द्विजातयः।
चतुर्थएकजातिस्तुशूद्रोनास्तितुपञ्चमः।।(Manu. 10.4)


This means that the three varnas, i.e., the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyasand the Vaishyas are called dvijatis (dvijas, i.e., twice-born) because they have, through education, a second birth also. The fourth varnais ekjati (once-born only) because members of this varna have only onebirth, i.e., the normal birth and do not have a second birth named Vidyajanma. There are no other varnathan these four ones.


(b) शूद्रेणहिसमस्तावद्यावद्वेदेनजायते।(2-172)


It means that unless a man acquires the Brahmajanma (a second birth by undertaking the studies of the Vedas) he continues to remain like aShudra.


(c) नवेत्त्यभिवादस्य—यथाशूद्रस्तथैवसः (Manu. 2-126)


It means that the one who is not possessed of the courtesy of doingobeisance to others is a Shudra.


(d)प्रत्यवायेनशूद्रताम् (Manu. 4-245)


It means: A Brahmana becomes a Shudra ifhe joins the companyof depraved and evil-minded people and conducts himselfat their level.This definition of the Shudra continued to remain in operation evenuntil later days.


(e) जन्मनाजायतेशुद्र:,संस्काराद्द्विज् उच्यते|(SkandaPurana)


Every person is born a Shudra. It is onlyon the performance of theUpanayana ceremony laterthat he becomes a dvija(twice-born).This system upheld by Manu is practised on the island of Bali eventoday. There dvijatiand ekjati words are used to distinguish the dvijasfrom the Shudras. However, Shudras are not regarded as untouchablesthere.



  1. Shudras are not Untouchables


A numberofverses in the Manusmriti indicate that Manu had anattitude of humanity, feeling and goodwill towards Shudras and by no meansdid he regard them as untouchable, depraved and hate-worthy. Manu has used for Shudras such epithets as ‘best’, ‘highest’ and ‘cleanest'” And aperson who is described so eulogistically can never be untouchable orhate-worthy, (9-335). Manu has directed Shudras to carry out in the households of dvijas such domestic chores as cooking, and some othermanual and labour-based services(1-91;9·334,335).lf some Shudracomesas a guest to the house of a dvija the latter is directed to serve him meals,(3-112). Heis also directed to take meals only after he has served meals tohis servant” who used to be Shudras in those times (3.)16). Are the servants and domestic helps in a household in the present day varna-free’civilized’society served meals in precedence over the employer? Are they given so much of consideration? How humane, respectful andconsiderate an attitude Manu had!


As per Vedic Varna system Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas andShudras have been metaphorically described to have emerged from themouth, arms, thighs and feet of Brahma (the pramatmapurusha) respectively(1-31). This leads us to three conclusions. Firstly, the membersof all the four varnas are the progeny of God and enjoy equal status. Secondly,when they are all born of the same origin, not even one varnacanbe untouchable or despicable. Thirdly the feet which are organs of thesame body cannot be untouchable or despicable vis-a-vis the other parts. With such verses in the Mamusmriti, can any objective and unprejudicedreader make the observation that Manu regarded Shudras as untouchableand hateworthy?


  1. Special concessions to Shudras in the order of precedence


Manu has given exceptional regard to Shudras in matters of socialrecognition. In the order of precedence prescribed by Manu he accordsrespect and recognition to the first three varnas in proportion to theirmerits. And accordingly the learned are the most respectable (2-111, 112,130). But Manu has shown extra consideration for Shudras and hasprovided that the members of the dvijavarna should show prior respect toan aged Shudra, even though he be illiterate. Such respectfulness for agehas not been extended to any of the first three varnas.




Meaning: All elderly Shudra should be shown respect in precedenceover others who deserve to be respected only on the basis of the merits they possess-the greater the merits the more the respect.


  1. Freedom to Shudras in the observance of religious rules and duties


(a) नधर्मात्प्रतिषेधनम्।(10-126).


It means that the Shudras are not barredfrom the observance of religious ceremonies and rites. In saying so, Manuhas allowed freedom to Shudras to observe religion. The samepoint is also made in the verse in which he says ‘we must imitate goodpoints of conduct found even in a Shudra (2-213). Vedas grant Shudras aclear right ofperformingyajna, and of reading Vedas and Shastras:


यथेमांवाचंकल्याणीमावदानिजनेभ्य: |
ब्रह्मराजन्यभ्यांशूद्रायचार्यायचस्वायचारण|य|| यजुर्वेद – (Yajurveda xxvi-2)


Meaning: I have given the benevolent Vedic sermon for all humanbeings, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, women, domestic help and the Shudras of the lowest degree also.


(b)यज्ञियासःपञ्चजनाममहोत्रंजुषध्वम्(Rigveda 10-53-4)

पञ्चजना: =चत्वारोवर्णाः,निषाद: पञ्चमः(Nirukta 3-8)


Meaning: Five classes of people who are entitled to performyajnashould carry out agnihotra. They are the people belonging to the fourvarnasand the fifth are the Nishadas,Manu proclaims that the postulates of the Manusmriti are in conformity with those of the Vedas. Naturally, therefore, Manu’s beliefsand views are also the same as those of the Vedas. That is the reason whywearingofupanayana has not been barred for anyone inthe discussion onthis topic in the Manusmriti. It means that one becomes Shudra only whenone does not undergo upanayana ceremony and remains uninitiated.


  1. Shudras the least liable to punishment as per Manu’s penal code


Now let us have a look at the penal code propounded by Manu. It ishighly improper to suggest that Manu has provided for the Shudras a morestringent code of punishment, and has extended privileges and prerogativesto Brahmans. In Manu’s code merits are the yardstick, and the level ofintelligence, social status, post and position held and the likely socialconsequences of the crime are the fundamental criteria for determiningthe punishment to a wrong-doer. Manu’s code of punishment is just andequitable which is also psychologically effective. If Manu has accordedgreater respect and higher social status to higher varnas, he has alsoprovided for more rigorous punishment in the case of members of these varnaswho commit crimes. Accordingly the Shudra is the least and the Brahmanaamong all the varnas is the most liable to punishment. In case a king isinvolved in a crime he is liable to much more severe punishment.





A convict in crimes like theft etc. has to be punished keeping inmind the principle that higher the varna to which he belongs the greater the punishment be meted out to him as there is expected to be greaterunderstanding on his part in respect of the seriousness of the crime, itsconsequences and social implications. Thus a Shudra is to be punished eight times severely, the Vaishya sixteen times,a Kashatriya thirty two times, Brahmana sixty four times; nay, hundred times or even 128 times more severely.


Besides, Manu has also ruled that no person-be it the preceptor,the priest or even the parents of the king should beexempted from thesaid punishment. The king should not let even a friend go scot-free. Ifsome financially well-off convict seeks exemption on the payment of alarge sum of money in lieu ofthe physical punishment due to him he too should not be let offwithout due punishment. (8.335,347)


See how just, practical, result oriented and psychologically effectiveManu’s penal code is! Ifit is juxtaposed with the present day penal code the difference will become clear. The cardinal principleoftoday’scode is: Allare equal in the eyes of law. Its first point of difference with Manu is thatwhereas in it people enjoy social prestige as per their position and status in the public and the government they are liable to only equal punishment.


The second point of difference is that the modem system is not equitable.This unequitable situation can be explained with an illustration. Suppose on trespassing into a field to graze, a lamb, a buffalo or an elephant is eachstruck with one blow of the same slick, what will be its effect on each ofthese animals? The poor lamb will break down and start bleating in pain, the buffalo willjust feel the impact and the elephant won’t even feel that ithas been given a blow. But the question is: Does it really amount to a standard measure of punishment and equitable justice? Equitable justice is that which works in normal day to day life. A he-buffalo can be controlled with just a lathi blow whereas it requires an iron-hook or a goad to tame anelephant or a lion. Let us take another illustration. If it is a question of thepayment of a fine ofRs. 1000/- a poor and penniless person will be able to pay it off with extreme hardship by borrowing the amount on exacting terms and will have to labour for a life time to repay the sum. A manbelonging to middle class will feel the pinch of it but will easily pay it off. But a wealthy person will pay off the fine with a what-do-I- care attitude! It is the result of only this unrealistic and psychologically ineffective penalsystem that whereas the poor get entrapped in the clutches of law, the people with position, pelfand power easily get away with crimes or havethemselves let off on the payment of only monetary fines. It will berevealing to cast a glance at the statistics available as to how many of thepoor and powerless on the one side and how many of the rich andresourceful on the other side have been effectively booked for offences. The latter, if at all they are sentenced, keep on paying off monetary fines foroffences only to repeat them. There is no such imbalance in Manu’s PenalCode which is extremely even handed!


The severity of punishment is perfectly proportionate to the seriousnessof the crime in Manu’s penal code. He provides for rigorous punishmentsfor serious crimes, and for lighter punishments for less serious offences to all varnas without any discrimination, whatsoever. The provision for very harsh punishment especially for the Shudras is in sharp contrast to Manu’spronounced code. Such a provision is to be found only in the spurious verses which were never composed by Manu.


  1. Shudras are not slaves


The statement calling for engaging Shudras in slavery or for notpaying them their wages runs counter to Manu’s well-known instructions.In fact Manu has called upon the kings to give wages to servants anddomestic helps as per their status. He also emphasises that their wagesshould not be deducted without any sufficient and valid reasons. (7·125,126,8-216)


  1. Shudrasare Savarnas


If we referto the Manusmritiin its present interpolated form wecan see a number of provisions made by Manu which have been altered bythe subsequent societies to suit their whims and requirements. Manuregards all the four varnas as savarna and anyone other than the four asnon-savarna. But the subsequent societies started putting the Shudras inthe category of non-savamas. (10-4,45)


Manu includes the artisans, sculptors, etc. among the Vaishyas (3-64,9-329; 10-99-120) but the subsequent society relegated them to the categoryof Shudras. Also, whereas Manu regards agriculture and animalhusbandry as the job of the Vaishyas (1.90) the Brahmanas and Kshatriyaswho have mostly been pursuing these professions have not been acceptedas Vaishyas by the subsequent societies including the present. How canthis categorising be accepted as prescribed by Manu?


Thus we see that the provisions which were really made by Manuare just and equitable. He has not been unfair to the Shudras or, for that matter, to any other varna.


  1. The position of women in the Manusmriti
  2. Women are held in highest esteem


It is clear from the internal evidence of the Manusmriti that theanti-women picture of Manu presented by some is baseless and contrary tothe facts. The provisions concerning women in Manu have been inspired byhis sense of respect, justice and goodwill and his concern for their securityand equality with men. Here are some facts of evidence in support: -Maharshi Manu is the first great man ofthe world to have given thesociety the highest ideal about women which adds remarkably to the dignity’, status and self-respect of women.


यत्रैतास्तुनपूज्यन्तेसर्वास्तत्राफलाःक्रियाः|| (3·56)


The correct meaning of the verse is: Gods (who stand for divine qualities, good deeds, sweet nature and blessings for the family, for obedient children and other coveted possessions) make their abode in thehousehold in which women are treated with respect. However, wherethey are not shown any respect, all ventures and undertakings end in smoke. There can be no better proof to show the reverential attitude ofManu towards women than the extremely respectful and beautifuladjectives used for women by him. He says that women in the family are instrumental in bringing good luck to the household; they are respectable; they are illuminating by their very presence and decorative in appearance;they are a symbol of prosperity; they are the mistresses and the solemanagers of the household; they are heavenly in influence; they areconducive to a smooth worldly journey (ix-11, 26, 28; v- 150). He adds that people wishing for their welfare must respect women and that those families and households in which women have to suffer slights, go to dogs.According to him the real happiness and welfare of a household lies in thehappiness and welfare of the women in it (iii-55-62). So he instructs thehusband and the wife in the household to remain happy and satisfied witheach other, not to act against each other and not to indulge in any such activity as may lead to their separation (ix-101·102). Only one verse will suffice to bring out Manu’s feelings.


प्रजनार्थमहाभागा: पूजार्हागृहदीप्तय: ॥

स्त्रिय: श्रियश्चगेहेषुनविशेषोस्तिकश्चन॥ (Manu 1-26)


It means that women bring good luck to a household throughprocreation; they deserve respect and reverence; they irradiate the housewith their presence. In fact there is no difference between the goddess ofwealth and the woman.


  1. Son and daughter have equal status


Those unacquainted with Manu’s code will be pleasantly surprisedto be informed that Manu is the first law-giver to have ordained that sonand daughter enjoy an equal status in the family. He has also given this concept a constitutional validity. He says:पुत्रेणदुहितासमा।(9-130) whichmeans that daughter is at par with son in every respect.


  1. Son and daughter: Equal partners in parental property.


Manu regards both the son and the daughter as equal heirs toparental property. This opinion findsa mention in theManusmriti in chapter ix-130, 192. This very view has been quoted in the Nirukta as follows:-



मिथुनानांविसर्गादौमनु: स्वायम्भुवोsब्रवीत्|| (iii-1-4)


Meaning: In the beginning ofthe creation SvayambhuManuordained and declared that there are equal rights for sons and daughters in theancestral parental property. Manu has infact enhanced the importance ofgirls in the house-hold by laying down that only daughters (and not sons)are entitled to inherit the personal property of the mother(ix- 131).


  1. Special instructions for the safety of women’s property:


Manu has ensured that nobody usurps the property of women under the impression that they are weaklings. He has laid down that people makingsuch attempts, howsoever close they may be to the concerned woman, should he given the same punishment as has been prescribed for thieves(ix-2 12; iii-52, viii-2,29).



  1. Stringent punishment for crimes against women


Manu has tried to ensure the security of women by laying down thatthe kidnappers and killersof women should be awarded capital punishmentand the rapists be banished after being tortured (viii-323; ix0232, viii-352).Manu has given clear instructions for the redressal of all difficulties, big or small, facing women. Men have been instructed not to quarrel with their mother,wife and daughter (iv-180). There is a provision for punishment to persons leveling false charges against them; to those deserting women even when they are innocent; to those who fail to fulfill conjugal obligations towardswomen (viii-275,389; ix-4).


  1. Marital Freedom to Women:


Manu has an ideal approach on the subject of marriage of a woman.He has conceded to her the freedom of marrying a man of her choice whoin her opinion is the most suitable for her (ix-90, 91). He has allowedremarriage of a widow and has also sanctioned Niyoga (temporaryattachment to a member of the opposite sex for a definite purpose such asprocreation, etc.) (ix-1 76,56-63). Marriage is a symbol of affection and respect for girls and, therefore, according to Manu dowry in any form ishighly improper and hence forbidden (i ii-51-54). Earnestly wishing for thehappiness of women he suggests that it is better to remain unmarried lifelong than to marry a wicked and vicious man (ix .89).


  1. Joint obligations and woman’s indispensability in the performance of religious rites


The participation which women get in every field of activity enjoyed bymen in India as sanctioned by Vedic religion is of a unique nature and is notto be seen elsewhere. Here no religious rite, no social ceremony and nohousehold venture can be accomplished without women being associated.Manu also has the same creed to propound. So he entrusts the job ofaccomplishing religious rites and ceremonies to women, and gives directions that such rites should not be carried out without theirparticipation (ix- II 28, 96). During the Vedic period women enjoyed allrights such as the right to study the Vedas, right to the wearing ofyajnopavita (sacred thread), right to doyajna (sacrificial ceremony),etc. They used to embellish the position of Brahma (the director) in theyajna ceremony. They would acquire the position of seers (exponents) ofVedic hymns after having received high education. Manu who regarded the

Vedas as being of axiomatic authority in all religious matters was a greatadvocate of high education and all religious rights for women as ordainedin the Vedas. That is why he rules that all the rights relating to womenshould be carried out under their own supervision with the chanting ofVedic hymns by them. (ii-4 ;iii.28)


  1. Preference to women


The admirers of’ladies first’ culture will be gratified to learn thatManu has instructed that we should stepaside to make way for women ona priority basis. He also rules that newly married women, unmarried girls, ailing, expectant and old women should be provided foodfirst and then only should husband and wife in the family take mealstogether.(ii.138; iil.114, 116)Al1these provisions in Manu indicate the highdegree of sense of respect and affection he had for womenfolk.


  1. Manu not in favour of unrestrained freedom to women


It will be only pertinent to clarify in this context that Manu is anadmirer of virtues and a great detractor of vices. So he accords all respectto virtuous ladies and provides for all punishmentstovicious women.

One of the characteristics of these provisions of Manu is that he is not infavour of unlimited liberty for women which may make her unsafe andconsequentially be extremely harmful to her. So he has warned womenagainst jumping the security cover provided to her either by the father or bythe husband or by the son because such a misadventure on her part canbring a bad name to two families, her parents’ and that of herin-laws’ (v-149; ix-56) However, by no means does it mean that Manu isanti-women’s lib. This only implies that the first social requirement ofwomen is security which may be provided to her by the State’s law andorder machinery or by some man or by her own valour. Her own valour, moreoften than not, fails to protect her in a world dominated by sensualtendencies. There are instances to show that even well-armed woman dacoits have required male protection and patronage. However, it will notbe proper to assess Manu’s contentions in the present day politicalperspective. Today there is a law-enforcing government and yet thousands of women have been criminally assaulted and thus compelled togo to the dogs. The rape and subsequent killing of women is the order of the dayand the rule of law is rendered ineffectual. The real import of Manu’swords can be realized vis-a-vis a situation when there is looseness inadministration consequent upon a change in the system of governmentfollowing violent incidents. It is in such a situation that Manu’s words proveto be perfectly true.


This analysis makes it clear that the provisions made by Manu areneither anti-shudra nor anti-woman. They are in fact, extremely fair,just,impartial and even-handed. Manu has said nothing objectionable, nothing exceptionable.


E- Spurious interpolations in the Manusmriti


The aforementioned discussion leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the Manusmriti does have in it a large number of verses carryingnoble canons and commandments. However, it is also a fact that theextremely objectionable verses which anti-Manu writers have beenquoting and underscoring are imputed to Manu and hisManusmriti. Thismakes the scripture a carrier of paradoxes. If the latter type of verseswere also accepted as really from the originalManusmriti it would meanthat the book has in it on the one side just and fair rules and regulations andunfair and treasonable and hence despicable proposals and postulates onthe other. The crucial question is: Is it an acceptable position that a bookshould originally carry in it such paradoxes and self-contradictorystatements and commandments? When there are no apparently self-contradictorystatements in the compositions of even ordinary writers ofaverage intelligence how can there be such paradoxical statements in thewrite-up of such a legal luminary and religiously righteous sage. A plain, simple and incontrovertible explanation to this is one and only one: the justand noble laws and those giving due consideration to a man’s potentialities,actions and abilities are originally written by Manu and those against theseprinciples, and putting a premium on partial, unreasonable and unjustapproach are interpolations added to the Manusmriti from time to time,designed to suit the vested interests of interpolators. This explanation getsupheld as correct and just if we make a reference to the Manusmritiitself. The original verses are contextually relevant and written in a soberstyle which matches with the principle of due consideration for an individual’s merits, actions and potentialities so dearly upheld by Manu.The interpolated verses are written in a different style and are not onlyirrelevant and out of context but also thematically discordant Thus we candetermine which verses are original and which ones are interpolated. Inbrief the following can be stated as guiding principles for telling the originalfrom the interpolated:-


1.The system upheld by Manu is the Vedic Varna system (EvenDr. Ambedkar has accepted this fact). So the verses upholding theprinciple of merit-profession-potentiality are the original ones and thoseagainst it and pleading for parentage and birth as determining factors arethe motivated insertions made subsequently.There were no castes during Manu’s times. That is why Manu does not name any caste as belonging one or the other varna. Keeping this inview the logical conclusion is that the verses upholding the inheritance ofvarnas are the interpolated ones.


  1. The verses relating to the system of due and equitable punishment quoted in the present write-up, which constitute the generallaw, are original. And the verses which talk of discriminatory rigorouspunishment only to some sections are interpolated ones.


  1. Similarly the verses quoted here relating to the definition of Shudras, talking of a charitable attitude towards them, of the performance ofreligious rites by them of possible change from one varna to the other arefrom the original text. On the other hand those which talk of a person beinga Shudra if born of Shudra parents, which talk of untouchability, ofdiscrimination between the high and the low, and those which supportexploitation of weaker sections are interpolated ones.


  1. Again the verses quoted in this article suggesting that women should be given due regard, should enjoy social freedom, have equalitywith men and have the right to education including the right to study the Vedas, are original and those negating these postulates are interpolations.Some readers may be interested in going deep into the question ofwhich verses are original and why, which verses are subsequent motivatedadditions and why. They are urged to refertotheManusmriti (Complete)in Hindi published by the ArshSahityaPracharTrust. 455-.Khari Baoli, Delhi. This book carries an appraisal of the book on the strength of arguments based on internal evidence and tells the original verses from theinterpolated ones on the basis of universally acceptable yardsticks. Thisedition of the Manusmriti will prove very useful in securing informationregarding the original subjects taken up in the scripture for discussion,regarding the interpolated verses clearly stating why they are decisivelyand conclusively interpolated and not original, regarding some of the popular misgivings about the Manusmriti and their resolution in aconvincing manner. This is the latest research on interpolations in theManusmriti. It is essential to make it clear here that the interpolatedverses are no longer a subject of controversy. Instead, they have beenaccepted as such decisively, conclusively and finally. It is a factsupported by written evidence that there motivatedadditions have been made to the ancient Sanskrit literature from time to time. TheMahabharata which originally carried only 10,000 verses has graduallybecomea stupendous volume of about one lakh verses. Today’s Ramayanacarries hundreds more shlokas than those in a hand-written versionwhich is about one thousand years old and which isstilllying preserved inthe Nepalese archives. The Manusmriti is also sailing in the same boat. As a matter of fact a larger number of additions, alterations andinterpolations have been carried out in it. The reason obviously is that it is more related and relevant to the day-to-day conduct and concerns of humanbeings. So it was subjected to manipulations by vested interests. Thescholars of all shades and hues are unanimous on the issue ofinterpolations in the Manusmriti. The commentaries available on it bear adirect testimony to this fact. The later-day commentaries carry a largernumber of verses. There are 170 more verses in Kullukabhatta’scommentary (12th century) than those found in that of Meghalithi (9thcentury). Till then the extra verses in the former had not been assimilatedin the main body of the commentary and so had to be given in largebrackets. There is a variation in the number of verses found in othercommentaries.


* British researchers like Wooler, J.Jolly, Keith and MacDonell andthe Encyclopedia Americana also accept that the Manusmriti carries alarge number of interpolations.


*MaharshiDayanand, the founder of the Arya Samaj regards onlythe original and interpolation-free Manusmriti as authentic. He has pointedout some interpolated verses and has urged scholars to identify other suchverses for expurgating this great work.


*Mahatma Gandhi in his book entitled ‘Varna Vyavastba’ accepts that the objectionable verses found in the Manusmriti are subsequentmotivated insertions. Dr. Radhakrishanan, Dr. Rabindemath Tagore andother national leaders and scholars too are of the same opinion.Hence the need of the hour is that the original Manusmriti shouldbe reckoned as authentic, and the opposition to Manu on the basis ofinterpolated Shlokas should be rebuttedbecause Manu and Mauusmritiare worth taking pride in and not something condemnable. We shouldnot drag such invaluable and important heritage of our country in the dirtypolitics of vested interests, and thus should not desecrate it by subjecting itto indignities and insults.



Did the Aryans really come from outside India?: Dr. Dharmveer

The leader of opposition in Loksabha (lower house of the parliament), Mallikarjun Khadge in a recent debate said that the Aryans invaded India 5000 years ago and have been exploiting the dalits ever since. He also proclaimed that the dalits would continue the struggle against the Aryans. He also declared BJP to be a party of the outsiders who is ruling India. No one can understand the gravity of this falsehood better than the Arya Samaj. MP Swami Sumedhanand deserves commendation for having contested Khadge’s claim by protesting it in writing and getting it removed from the day’s  proceedings.


It was not the first time that this issue was raised in the parliament. Many years ago, an Anglo Indian remember of the Rajya Sabha (Upper house of the parliament) had raised a similar issue. No one had however understood the gravity of the situation at that time. The honorable member had said that the Indians should not consider English to be a foreign language. Indians love Sanskrit which is a language of the Aryans who too had come from outside India. When they love Sanskrit why do they dislike English and consider it to be a foreign language?


The theory of Aryan invasion in India is the result of British creativity to divide and rule the country.  Before the British the Muslims had invaded India and enslaved it. They used force to destroy its culture, beliefs and traditions.  The British however adopted a systematic and organized intellectual approach to achieve the same objective. Malikarjun Khadge is a victim of that same conspiratorial approach. The West is still active in its efforts to break India. Religious conversions by Muslims and Christians one hand and Naxalite and Maoist violence on the other are active in creating an atmosphere of anarchy and instability in the country. In the name of spreading modern values and trade they are destroying the moral and the cultural fabric of the society. The Aryan- Dravidian conflict is also one such approach to break India. It is a systematic effort by the West and the church to divide India into a “ Christian Nation, a Muslim nation and a Dravid nation”.  However the purpose of this discourse is the “ Aryan Invasion theory” and why it should be debunked. The Aryan invasion theory should have been quashed right at the time of independence. But for over 60 years the administration was in the hands of “ Mr. Khadge”s Party” which had considered the destruction of India, its beliefs, its traditions and its language as its primary goal. It considered the British and English language the synonym of progress and encouraged the same. Till date the students in India study that the Aryans came from outside, defeated the indigenous people, the Dravidians, drove them to the South and established their rule in India. The lie is so widespread that Congress party’s MP stands as the spokesperson of the theory and believes himself to be a non Aryan.


Today India has the opportunity to expunge this false theory from our educational syllabus and remove the words like “ indigenous people or Adivasis (scheduled tribes) from our administration. If Khadge had been different from the Aryans, his name would not have been Mallikarjun. If he considers BJP to be a party of the Aryans the outsiders, then he should see who he represents in the parliament, Sonia Gandhi? Khadge is an Indian and I am sure he loves his motherland, he should also then understand the conspiracy behind it.


Before even starting discussing this theory, I would like to mention that the word Arya is qualitative and not casteist. When the Veda says “ Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam”, it means be noble and make the whole world noble. When we wish to make the whole world noble, how does Mr. Khadge plan to remain non noble or non Aryan? The world Aryan and non Aryan is used in context of good and bad people. Manu says that Aryans and dasysus( non Aryans) live in this country. The word dasyu was used for thieves and robbers. Would Mr. Khadge still like himself to be called a non Aryan, considering what the real meaning of the word is? Do thieves and robbers have a separate caste and how can Mr. Khadge want himself to be a representative of thieves and robbers.


According to the ancient Indian texts and literature, Aryans are the people who believe in a noble ideology and traditions, who accept Vedas and follow the Vedic tradition. Those who believe this are Aryans and those who do not are the non Aryans. On this principle any one can be an Aryan and anyone can become an Aryan. In the Aryan tradition a wife addressed her husband as “Arya Putra” (son of a noble man). The westerners created the Aryan invasion theory out of thin air with a single objective of creating a rift and dividing the Indian society. This school of thought has long been discarded of scientific factual grounds. The enemies of India however keep raising it again and again to divide the country.


This conspiracy was first understood by Swami Dayanand and he contested it in his various texts. He has written that there is no evidence of the Aryans having come from outside in any of our text or literature. If the Aryans had indeed come from outside, a historical event of such great significance would have been recorded somewhere in our history. It is impossible that such an event occurred and there is no trace of it in the history. It is a kind incident that people quote for centuries.  Today if some one take asylum or a there is a terrorist attack, in either case we find the incidents mentioned. In the society there are stories, folklores and traditions. Do we find Aryan traditions anywhere else in the world? Is the language of the Aryans spoken anywhere else in the world? Has there been any evidence that it was spoken in a different part of the world in the past? The answer is a resounding NO.



Such a big race or tribe such as the Aryans could not have migrated over night from their homeland to India. There should have been evidence of this migration somewhere on the route they might have taken. If they came and conquered India then did they leave all the nations in between unconquered? If they conquered these nations too, then why do we not find any evidence of the Aryan invasion in these countries? Swami Dayanand writes that Aryans were the very first people to have inhabited India. Our texts and Swami Dayanand both believe that at the time of creation of the earth it was all submerged under water. The first part too come out of the water was Tibet and because it was the highest, man first originated there. Humans first came to India from there. They made it their home and from here they spread to other parts of the world. The Aryan invasion theory is false imaginative and at best a conspiracy.


All the ancient texts all over the world do not have a single mention of Aryans coming to India from outside. Some of them of course do mention that their ancestors came from India. For example Avesta, the religious and historic text from Iran mentions that their ancestors came from India and settled in Iran. When one race conquers another they commemorate their victory in several ways. They write manuscripts and inscriptions about the event, they erect pillars and stupas to mark the victory. They create history in order to ensure that the event is remembered. We do not find any such evidence in India. This further discredits the Aryan invasion theory. Various Brahman text and Manusmriti mention that Aryans came to India from Tibet and were its first Inhabitants. There is however no mention of the Aryans coming from central Asia and ousting India’s original inhabitants.


Are the people who are today called Dalits, Shudras or Scheduled castes really that different from the Aryans? Their clan, traditions, food habits, clothes and ornaments are all the same. Their gods and goddess are also same. They all worship Ram, Hanuman, Shiv and Ganesha. Their fasts, festivals, rite and rituals are also same. Both societies are divided into rich and poor, master and servant on the basis of level of affluence. The society is overall the same. The only difference are in education, wealth, justice and injustice. This is however a feature common to all societies all over the world. The differentiating factor of this society is the evil practice of determining the caste by birth. Because of this ignorance, hypocrisy, divide of low caste and high caste and the practice of untouchability, the British were able to take advantage of this division to spread hostility and malevolence in the country and have been doing it to this date.


The British had sent their messenger to Pandit Bhagwadutta to write in his texts that the Jats had come from outside. But Pandit Bhagwadutta had declined this vehemently. Where some people declined to follow the British diktat, there were others who obliged them for money or perks associated with it.


Rishi Dayanand understood the the British conspiracy and fought against it with evidence. Manu’s shlokas determine Aryavarta boundary as “ Aasamudrata” which is interpreted as being from Vindhyas/Satpura to the Himalayas. Swami Dayanand interprets it is as being until Rameshwaram. In his chapter on the genesis of the Vedas, Swami Dayandand writes that when we recite the Sankalp path – Aryavarte Jamboo dweepe Bharat Khande” we reiterate as the Aryans being the first people ever to have to come to India and naming it Aryavarta.


India was given various names during different phases of history. But there is no evidence of any name being given it before Aryavarta or Brahmavarta. This again proves the Aryan invasion theory to be bogus. The fact that Aryans came to Aryavarta from outside is self contradictory.


The reason that Mr. Khadge still quotes this false theory is the propaganda machinery being used to peddle this lie. The reservation system given on the basis of caste is being used as the basis to keep this falsehood alive and burning. Various christian organizations in Europe and America pump large amount of money through various agencies to keep this theory alive. Two such prominent agencies active in India are the BAMCEF – Backward And Minority Communities Employees Federation and the Indigenous Affairs Group. Several universities in Australia, Eurpose and America have set up seats to research the history of the Indigenous “Adivasi” dalit people and try to establish with DNA evidence that the adivasi DNA is different from the Aryan DNA. These organizations use the name of Jyotiba Phule and Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar to separate this group from the other Hindus. More than 200 books have been published by these organizations and distributed amongst dalits to convince them that they are different from the other Hindus. The objective is to convince the Dalits that they had nothing to do with India’s freedom movement. It was a fight of the high caste hindus for their rights. The British were their saviors who saved them from the oppression of high caste hindus who had been till then exploiting them. Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Shivaji or Maharani Pratap were all high caste Hindus fighting for their own rights.  These organizations do not discuss any reform movement by Swami Dayanand, Swami Shraddhanand or the Arya Samaj. They are active in instigating the dalit castes against the so called high caste Hindus. They distribute literature, show various movies to aggravate this divide. They organize seminars in different parts of the country and encouragee Dalits to participate in them. They do not allow people with an alternative view or other caste people to participate in these seminars.

BAMCEF was established in 1973 with American help by the BSP founder Kanshiram and DK Khapde. The objective of this associations to take advantage of the reservation system and increase the divide between the high caste and the low caste. Most of the people are not aware of the activities of this organization and those who are do not give it much importance. However Mr. Khadge through his speech in Loksabha proved that this idea is gaining ground. The society and the government need to be pro active in order to deal with it.



Sri Ram had said for his homeland India that “ mother and mother land are better than even the kingdom of heaven. Not only this, the Aryans have described India as a land of envy for the gods of heaven. Can a person describe any other country other than his homeland in such beautiful words as these

गायन्ति देवाः किल गितकानि

धन्यास्तु ते भारत भूमिभागे

स्वर्गापवर्गास्पद मार्गभूते

भवन्ति भूयः पुरुषाः सुरत्वात्



The lords of heaven laud those who are lucky to have been born in this divine country which is even better than heaven itself and whose people are better than the gods of heaven.

Yes, the Vedas sanction death of a cow slaughterer: Dr. Dharmveer

The debate on beef is nothing new. The liberals, intellectuals have been creating an uproar about their right to eat beef on a regular basis. Their fight is not about an animal, their main objective today is to be anti Hindu. They will stand up for anything and against anything as long it is against Hinduism. Their overlords have just been thrown out of power after misgoverning India for 60 + years and they are venting out their frustration about anything they can get their hands on. If they really had concern for the Muslim world, they would have raised their voice against what is happening in Syria. They are essentially a bunch of hypocrites who were until now receiving monetary and other benefits for their anti Hindu stance. With the Modi Government coming to power in 2014 this has stopped to a great extent and this is the only way they know, to vent out their frustration. However their anti hindu stance has now morphed into being anti national.


According to them, Hindus do not have right priorities. How can killing of a cow be so important. there can hardly be comparison between value of man and a cow. All animals were created for the human beings and it is hence no sin in killing them or eating them. Even if we buy this argument that all animals were created for human beings, it still doesn’t mean that we destroy them altogether and eating them cannot be the only use they can be put to. Firstly all that has been created for human beings is a common resource and belongs to all and should therefore benefit all. They should be used in a way that is most useful and serves everyone. The best utilization of the resources is a measure of human intelligence. One doesn’t burn a house and say that the wood is for fire. It is used for fire but it is useful in construction of a house as well. Putting it to the best is the responsibility and duty of human beings.



If someone wants to benefit himself at the cost of others, he cannot be given the right to do that.

Personal conduct is everyone’s right but in a society we abide by the rules of the society. Today those who are advocating their right to eat beef will tomorrow ask their right to eat other human beings, will we allow that in the name of personal freedom. This happened in “Nitahari”. The law and the society considered those people to be guilty and punished according to the crime.

Similarly, the hindu society considers the cow “ Aghanya” which means that it should not be killed. The law also forbids it. The so called liberal class wants eat beef  and go against the majority of the population (which is still Hindu) and the law. This is not only against the society but going against the law is betraying the country too.

If one sections is breaking the law and getting away with it, sooner or later the law abiding section will also break the law. If eating beef is the right of “ Engineer Rashid” then punishing the beef eater will become the right of a Hindu. Both these situations of breaking the law would give rise to anarchy and in the country. This is not in the interest of the society. We always have to uphold the interest of society and the country. If one section proves itself powerful by killing a cow and the other creates chaos by using pork, their will tension and both situations are regrettable.


The meat eaters, especially the beef eaters have today created a food problem for the entire world.  Beef is a food requirement for a few people but cow milk is for the entire society. children, elderly and the sick especially need milk. It is a requirement of those who eat beef as well.  A large scale consumption of beef has created a shortage for milk. Butter, ghee, sweets all are prepared with milk. Milk shortage has resulted in adulteration in all milk products as the supply can no longer meet the demand.  Due to mass slaughter of cows and other bovine population has brought us to verge of drinking soybean water as milk.

If we remove milk and milk products from our diet, there is hardly anything left in our food. We believe that factories, industries and services are symbols of prosperity. We cannot be more wrong.  The way our needs and requirements are fulfilled by livestock, they cannot be fulfilled by any other source.  The livestock population lies at the real base of our prosperity. Animals are beneficial in life and even after their death. Their natural death also provides us with a lot of things so where is the need to kill them. Cow’s milk is good for the development of brain as well as physical strength whereas the meat is rich in “ Tamo gun” ( which increases aggressive and destructive behavior and anger).  Swami Dayandand had written more than a century ago, that a decline of the livestock population will cause the fall of the king and his subjects.

British rule had understood 2 of our strengths that needed to be destroyed in order to rule India.

The first was our education system which was knowledge, thought and ideal based. The second was a livestock, especially the cow which was central to our prosperity. They left us in poverty by destroying our these 2 strengths. Even today their pimps create ruckus on these issues in order to destroy the remaining social and religious fabric of India.



Cow is not a symbol of a Hindu or a Muslim identity. It belongs to everyone. Cow gives benefits even when it does not provide us milk. Cow manure is a natural fertilizer and cow urine is known to have medicinal properties. Developed countries are now developing medicines with cow urines to fight cancer. That cow milk enriches our food quality is a well known fact, cow manure is also an excellent natural fertilizer and protects soil quality. Swami Dayanand had made great efforts during his lifetime to protect cows and India’s livestock.  He also started a movement to collect 10 million signatures and send them to Queen Victoria to ban cow slaughter in India.  He understood the importance of cow in India’s Economy and explained it with a small book “ Gau Karunanidhi” or the economics of a cow. He explained that in a life time a cow can feed a much larger population as compared to the meet obtained by slaughtering it.  Hindus consider a cow holy, this is not just a religious belief that they have. It has its roots in the importance of a cow in our life and its basis in our prosperity. While we our busy slaughtering our cows, countries like Denmark are working to protect the Indian breed of cows. This makes the debate of beef in our country both depressing and worrisome. Milk from the Indian breed of cows is of a higher quality as compared to any other cow breed in the world. A large scale research has already proved this fact. This breed is today on the verge of extinction and we are debating our right to slaughter it. In light of these facts the debate on beef doesn’t seem natural but reeks of a concerted effort to destroy the society and halt its progress.


The advocates of beef who want to break the law in the name of using their right of freedom to eat food of their choice keep forgetting that this freedom can be exercised when the resource is in plenty and easily available. They feel that they have the right to eat beef, but is their right more important than the right of those who drink milk? The importance of beef over milk is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, nothing more. The cost of beef eating on health and environment has been widely researched and documented but has gone largely unheeded. There has been an increase in the technology of slaughtering and each development is more cruel than the previous one. A calf is killed while in the womb because the leather so obtained is soft and a very high quality. Animals is tortured before death as the meat so obtained is tastier! This has made humans more cruel. the effect of this is now being seen in our society, in our towns and cities and villages where people are becoming more cruel and more intolerant. The religions which do not have tenets of non violence should not be called religions. Tolerance and non violence are both essential to protect and maintain the limits and boundaries of a society. Raising and protection of cows and other livestock increases qualities of kindness and brings prosperity.

Some people make fun that we call cow our mother. They do not understand the sentiment behind the words. In India when we understand the importance and value of something and earn benefit from it we develop and emotional bond. We love it, value it and protect it.  We call the earth our mother, the teacher’s wife, wife of elderly people and wife of the king are also addressed as mother. The word symbolizes respect and reminds us of our duty towards them.

Those who advocate their right to eat beef but scorn at the mention of pork should be asked that if God created all animals for the consumption of human beings then why are pigs considered impure. Can God ever create pure and impure animals. the purity and impurity of anything that has been created by God is a relative term and has been created by human beings. All creations of the Creator are pure. Those who call certain animals impure should be remade doc the verse from “ Yog Darshana” that the human body is from birth to death synonym of impure. People decide pure and impure according to their knowledge, interest and needs

The need of the hour is to put a complete stop on beef export. Beef traders are trying to make more and more money by exporting beef especially to the Gulf countries. India is a federal State which means that the protection of cow is state subject and not that of the Union Government. A countrywide consensus has therefore not been achieved on the subject of cow protection and faces administrative hurdles. A few BJP states have banned cow slaughter, however a much more concerted effort is needed on allergen scale to protect the Indian cow.


The Vedas are quite clear on the concept of giving a death sentence for cow slaughter. What the Vedas say on this subject is therefore hardly a controversial topic. It is ludicrous therefore when people say that there is beef eating in the Vedas. India is however not governed according to the Vedas, and it is not run according to the Quran either, which says killing an infidel is a path to heaven. India is ruled by its Constitution. So whatever the Vedas say or the Quran says is immaterial and we should handle the matter as per the law which prohibits cow slaughter.


At the same time we remember what the Vedas say about punishment to a cow slaughterer

“ If someone destroys our cows, horses or people, kill him with a bullet of lead or glass”.


















The origin of the Vedas: Dr. Vidhu Mayor

Veda 1

The idea that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’ was first stated by Max Muller in the late 19th century.  Sadly, such statements have since been accepted uncritically, even within some Arya Samaj circles. It is sad because this contradicts the age-old theist Indian conviction that all four of the Vedas were revealed to mankind when humans were first created by God.  Each one of the four ‘books’ were revealed to four different humans.

The founder of the Arya Samaj movement, Svami Dayanand Sarsavati, expounds on the origin of the Vedas in his book Rigvedadibhashyabhumika, at the beginning of which he explains that God did not, however, produce the Vedas in the form of books in the beginning, but that ‘He revealed them to the consciousness of Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa’.  Amongst the first humans, these were four rishis of such great merit that they were the most worthy of this honour. The author further cites the Shatapatha Brahamana XI. 5-8-3: that from them, when they meditated, were produced the three Vedas, viz., from Agni was produced the Rigveda, from Vayu, the Yajurveda, and from Surya the Samaveda. God inspired their consciousness and produced the Vedas through them….God gave them knowledge in the shape of the Vedas. Dayanand stresses this point to emphasize that these four did not compose the Vedas; he further writes:

The Samhitas are called Veda because all men know all true sciences in or through them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because men become learned by studying them. The Samhitas are called
‘Shruti’ because from the beginning of creation to the present day Brahma and others have heard all true sciences read out of them. The Vedas, having been revealed by God who has no bodily organs, were never composed by a being having a corporeal body. God used Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa as His instruments only for revealing the Vedas….The Vedas are not the products of their minds. God, being possessed of perfect knowledge, the relations between the Vedic words and their meanings also were established by Him.

Dayanand then goes on to rationalise his assertion that this act of revelation took place over 1.96 billion years ago.  So, in this sense it would be partially true to say that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’.  Two errors in this statement, however, are that (i) it suggests that the Rig preceded the other three Vedas which – as has been explained above – is not true, for all four Vedas were revealed simultaneously and (ii) the false notion that these four samhitas began life in the form of ‘books’ of paper with ink-pen writing.  Obviously, at some point in history later on, this knowledge was written down into the form of books instead of it remaining solely imprinted in the memories of humans with unimaginably powerful intellects (even today wecan find men in India who are able to recite all 20000 mantras of the Vedas orally).

A third error implicit in Max Muller’s contention is that these books were written a few thousand years ago during the so-called Vedic era of India’s history. The case for debunking this as a myth now follows.

Textbooks of history used in schools in India even today teach that the people of India originate, racially, from an invasion of ‘Aryans’ into India over 3500 years ago – this version of history being a legacy left behind by the British rule over India for over two centuries.  The evidence for this theory is based mainly on the work done by European archaeologists and linguists during the time of Britain’s domination of India as its colony. The theory of Indo-Aryan migration was proposed in mid-19th century by German linguist and Sanskrit scholar Max Muller who proposed that these invaders introduced the ‘Indo-European languages’ and the caste system into India.

It is admittedly biased to summarily and contemptuously dismiss, here, these theories (which are predicated on proffering fossils of chariot technology as evidence, amongst other, of such an invasion) as being totally false. However, an author as eminent as GK Chesterton penned the following indictment of archaeology not being an exact science: the case in the 1920’s in the USA when the finding of a fossilised tooth was heralded – with much media excitement – as more proof that man had descended from apes because the tooth had characteristics of both man and ape.  However, in 1927 other parts of the skeleton were found – to reveal that this tooth was not that of `Nebraska Man’ but that of a pig!

Max Muller’s work will be critiqued later.  Firstly, however, Svami Dayanand’s powerful objection in his 1883 book ‘Light of Truth’ must be reiterated: In no Sanskrit book – historical or otherwise – is it recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran, fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true?  Why, indeed, did the Aryan invaders go to such lengths as to conceal or destroy all evidence of their origin in Central Asia? An analogy would be of there being, in three thousand years time, no surviving documentary evidence whatsoever, of the people of America today having emigrated there from Europe, in both those continents! Further, such a scenario would also require no evidence to survive of the virtual genocide of the indigenous American Indians by the European invaders. Why has no evidence emanated from Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan of such a migration?  Would one not expect them to present such evidence – of their exporting to India of its rich Vedic civilisation – with justifiable nationalistic pride?

Modern – Western – historians are notably silent in addressing or rebutting these objections; this silence is positively deafening in light of the allegations, by the likes of De Riencourt, of disingenuity on Dayanand’s part. Two discrepancies that become clear are (i) why is there such an enormous difference in the interpretation of the Rig Veda between today’s historians and Dayanand and (ii) why are there similar differences in the account of Indian history by Dayanand, an Indian, and the version – accepted as true today – proposed by ‘visiting’ western historians and archaeologists?

A brief digression is warranted here. The explanation offered by the Occident for the paucity of historical documents to be found in India is that, somehow, a peculiar characteristic of the Indian psyche is to have no need or interest in history!  Max Muller was not the first German to suggest this. One far more eminent, none other than the great German philosopher Hegel, remarked: ‘Its strikes everyone in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China….’ [The fascinating fascination that Germany discovered for India 200 years ago is another story that Indians of today must reflect upon].  Amaury de Riencourt, in his 1960 book The Soul of India further develops this – quite preposterous – notion as elaborated on page 9 of that book – ‘With the arrival of the Aryan war bands, all historical evidence vanishes; script disappeared, and the wooden structures of the Aryans rotted away in time without leaving any traces. From the very first, the invaders manifested the most remarkable trait of Indian psychology: a complete, instinctive indifference to history and the preservation of historical records. The Aryans in India had no memory.  And instead of historical treatises such as the Chinese have left to posterity , the Aryans left us myths – the transmutation of time-bound historical events into timeless tales in which fact and fancy are almost inextricably mixed.’

So, there we have it: Indians not only have a peculiarity in their make-up that precludes them from having a penchant for their own – or anyone else’s – history but are also asked to accept that it is necessary for foreigners to teach it to them.

Why, then, did Svami Dayanand devote well over a hundred pages in Chapter XI of the Light of Truth, a book primarily devoted Vedic theology and philosophy, to an examination of the history of India?  Why were as many as six of the 50-odd lectures he delivered in Pune in 1875 devoted to history? One of these began: ‘Today’s topic is history.  I shall talk about history in an orderly sequence.  Itihaasa means itihaaso naama vrittam, that is, it is a narration of past events. It started since the creation and it continues today.’  What were the sources he used – or is it inferred that a man revered for his colossal integrity fabricated his version?

De Riencourt finds it necessary to disparage Dayanand’s book as a ‘bird’s-eye view of world history’ and describes his interpretation of the Vedas as ‘his narrow-minded superficial metaphysics’.  Not mentioned at all is Dayanand’s simple explanation as to why the historical records in India have been decimated, that is, that they were destroyed by successive hostile ‘colonisers’ of India over a period of two millenia – beginning with the Buddhists and ending with the Islamic Mughals (and as is well-known today the British also seized literary records, amongst other things).

In debating which translation (Dayanand’s or Max Muller’s) of the Vedas should be believed, the starting point is that the Western world – and thus Indian text-books of history – accepts Max Muller’s contention that the compilation of the Vedas was started during the invasion of India by the Aryans circa 1500 BC and that their hymns, in the words of De Riencourt, ‘undoubtedly reflect the feelings of victorious and warlike barbarians.’

Dayanand translated (i) Rig Veda’s mantra 5:82.5 (Aum vishvaani deva savitur….) and (ii) God’s injunction in Rigveda 8-49-2 as follows:

(i)                  O, Omnipresent and benevolent Creator, disabuse us of our vices.  Secure in us that which is for our betterment [God, O all-pervading kindest Creator, take away our evils (and) inculcate goodness in us].

(ii)                 Acquire duly the Dharma preached by me, which is quintessentially devoid of bias and partiality, and is truthful by definition.

Come together to give up all conflict, so that the best of your happiness may increase and all suffering may be destroyed.

Having met together, hold discussions; ask questions and answer them, lovingly.  Avoid perverse reasoning such as sophistry, prejudiced and untrue arguments, so that noble qualities and true knowledge may forever increase amongst you.

Acquire wisdom to enable your minds to become replete with knowledge and always be filled with joy. Always follow Dharma and never practice Adharma. You should follow the same Dharma as has always been followed by learned, wise and impartial men -whether of past times or of the present age, that is, whether dead or living – maintaining a love for the preaching of the Divine Dharma.

They worshipped me as the Almighty and adorable God and followed the Dharma laid down by me. You also must do the same, so that you may know the Dharma inculcated by the Vedas and have no doubts about it.

Can these examples, indeed, be the work of Aryan savages?  Is the quality of this wisdom not, at least, on a par with the highest echelons of European metaphysics? Alternatively, is it not far more plausible that  Dayanand was correct in, echoing the message of India’s great ancient sages such as Patanjli, that God revealed the Vedas to the first humans He created?

An affirmative answer to that question, that is that the Vedas are of Divine Authorship and not the work of Aryan ‘bards’ imagined by the European colonist-missionary axis of the 18th and 19th centuries ,requires the presentation of further evidence to expose the notion of an Aryan invasion of India as being a fiction.


Vidhu Mayor, August 2014, Birmingham, UK.

Unmasking Mother Teresa :RAKESH KRISHNAN


You think Mother Teresa was a saint, right? Perhaps you also believe she lifted millions of poor people around the world out of poverty. Think again.

Teresa was no saint. She was no friend of the poor either. On the contrary, the Albanian nun celebrated poverty and suffering, and refused to give medicines to the inmates under her care, in the process allowing them to die painful deaths.

A new study by Canadian researchers backs up what rationalists and neutral observers – like Britain’s Christopher Hitchens – have long held: Teresa only cared about poverty and not the poor. Researchers Serge Larivee and Genevieve Chenard from the University of Montreal and Carole Senechal of the University of Ottawa argue that Teresa was a saint of the media, not the gutters.

The Canadians analysed over 500 published writings about Teresa and conclude that her hallowed image, “which does not stand up to analysis of the facts, was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media campaign”. Over 50 per cent of the books and articles were hagiographies, they say. The controversial study, to be published this month in the journal of studies in religion and sciences called Religieuses, says Teresa actually felt it was beautiful to see the poor suffer. According to the study, the Vatican overlooked the crucial human side of Teresa – her dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it.

Most people will find this hard to believe all this because the media has painted this lovely picture of a caring mother who dedicated her life to charity. But where she went wrong was in believing suffering was good for the people. She believed in her cause but she had no idea what effect it had on the poor and sick people under her care. A fawning media, idiotic politicians and countless donors have overlooked these aspects. But facts are humbling so let’s look at Teresa’s history – the uncensored bits, that is.

Tainted donations

Remember Charles Keating? An investment fraud artist, he was the chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a federal investigation after the 1989 savings and loans collapse, which wiped out $160 billion in savings. Many of those affected were ordinary Americans, mostly retirees.

Keating it was discovered, had given more than US$1 million to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud, Teresa wrote to the judge, telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. She advised him to do what Jesus would do.

What Jesus would have done is debatable, but the judge gave Keating 10 years for fraud.

The scene now gets murkier. According to Dr Don Boys, author and former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, ”Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, after all, that is what Jesus would have you do. The good nun never answered his letter (nor returned the stolen money). After all, it was for the ‘poor’.”

Seedy connections

Dr Boys says Teresa or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end, raising money for her cause of adding members to the church. ”Some of the sugar daddies she fawned over were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as the bloody Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), the Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha, Charles Keating, and other scoundrels,” he says. Taking money from Duvalier, one of the most vicious tyrants to walk the earth, would have been enough to subpoena Teresa. But she didn’t stop there.

One of the characters in her inner circle was Jim Towey, who became her legal counsel in the late 1980s. In February 2002, President George W. Bush violated both the letter and the spirit of the American constitution by setting up the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to further the cause of fundamentalist churches and religious conversions. Towey was appointed director of this office.


Teresa was a faithful servant of the Vatican. In an article on, author Christopher Hitchens says, ”During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, (Teresa) was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms.” In fact, while receiving the Nobel Peace Prize she told a dumbfounded audience that abortion is “the greatest destroyer of peace.”

(Nobel Prize winning economist and author Steven Levitt has demonstrated in his brilliantly written book, Freakonomics, how the legalisation of abortion contributed to the sharp – and unexpected – drop in crime in the United States. Abortions prevented the birth of unwanted children in precisely those families that might have raised them as criminals.)

Insider reveals

One of the most compelling accounts of the macabre world of Teresa’s order, the Missionaries of Charity, is by the Australian, Collete Livermore. A nun who worked in Teresa’s order for 11 years, she ended up sick and disillusioned. In 1984 she quit and wrote the book Hope Endures, where she talks about a little known but disturbing side of Teresa, which she says hurt the truly needy.

Livermore explains how the nuns were not provided with medical advice, the use of mosquito repellents, or information about malaria and vaccinations because Teresa believed “God” would look after the nuns. Livermore got into trouble with the order for helping a man with dysentery who was in danger of dying.

“The order cared more about obedience than doing the right thing,” she writes. Teresa quoted Peter 2:18-23, which orders slaves to obey their masters even if they are abusive and difficult, and used this text to urge her nuns to obey superiors without question.

In Manila, Teresa wouldn’t let the nuns have a washing machine, which forced them to wash the underwear of the incontinent with brushes. Livermore felt the order was more concerned about inflicting hardship on the nuns than on helping the sick. More angst was in store for Livermore when she was forbidden to help a sick boy named Alex. That’s when Livermore decided to leave the order because she didn’t like the way she was expected to let the poor suffer.

Pain is beautiful

Before she died, Teresa had opened over 600 missions in 123 countries. Some of these missions have been described as “homes for the dying” by visiting doctors. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food and no painkillers. ”There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was her reply to criticism, cites Hitchens.

It would be pertinent to mention here that each time Teresa herself fell sick she sought the finest medical care. Despite the fact that medical tourists from the West travel to India for treatment, Teresa reckoned India wasn’t good enough for her. She was admitted to California’s Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation.

Canonisation capers

In 1997, a year after her death, the pope nominated Teresa for beatification, the first step towards sainthood. However, by doing this the pope violated a Vatican tradition that allowed a cooling off period of five years to guard against dubious characters.

Writes Hitchens: “As for the ‘miracle’ that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of (Teresa), which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn’t have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican’s investigators? No.”

Poverty hugger

What did Teresa and her charity achieve in the last six decades? I have argued in the past that aid never works. Not even a dent has been made in the sum total of suffering because of Teresa. Take Calcutta. Virtually nothing has changed there, except that Teresa has given that unfortunate metropolis a rank bad name.

Today, large swathes of India are entering the First World thanks to employment generated by free enterprise. On the other hand, Calcutta, virtually alone among India’s cities, seems stuck in LDC (Least Developed Country) mode. While its long association with Marxism, another vile import, may have something to do with the lack of progress, the presence of the poverty mongers ensures the city finds it impossible to shake off its Third World image. Teresa’s fundraising sermons have drilled into people’s mind that it is a city of lepers and beggars. As Hitchens said, “On one instance the nuns claimed, untruthfully of course, that Calcutta had 450,000 lepers, knowing that the rich have a poor conscience and would promptly despatch their dollars.”

Making of a myth

Despite these disturbing facts, how did Mother Teresa succeed in building an image of holiness and infinite goodness? According to the three Canadian researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC’s Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist, was what catapulted her to superstardom.

In 1969, Muggeridge made a eulogistic film about the missionary. During filming, the interiors of Teresa’s mission in Calcutta were too dark, and he thought the scene wouldn’t come out well. But when the film was developed it turned out to be amazingly bright. Muggeridge trumpeted it as the ”first photographic miracle” when it should have been attributed to the new film stock being marketed by Kodak.

Teresa discovered the power of mass media; she travelled the world and received numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize.

No accountability

Today, around the world Teresa’s charities have attained untouchable status, which helps them fend off any attempts by the authorities to stop their morbid experiments on sick and poor people.

There is also the question of the missing millions. Millions of dollars were transferred to the charity’s many bank accounts, but most of the accounts are secret, says Larivee. ”Given the parsimonious management of (Teresa’s) works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?” he asks.

According to the researchers, Teresa raised almost $100 million before 1980. A good chunk was used for building houses for the missionaries. Just 5 per cent went to the cause. Let’s hear that again – just 5 per cent of that went to the poor.

The legacy

In India where Teresa did her ‘charity’ work for more than half a century, the ruling party flagged off a train named Mother Express to commemorate her birth centenary in 2010. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the party, and therefore, the country, is headed by the Italian Sonia Maino, a.k.a. Sonia Gandhi.

Teresa has been known to be stingy even during national emergencies. During numerous floods in India she offered numerous prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid, the Canadian researchers say.

It’s noteworthy that all the abandoned children who are taken in Teresa’s missions are brought up as Christians. I’m for conversion if it’s voluntary but these children were never offered a choice in the matter of religion.

In India, for instance, Teresa was (and her mission continues to be) actively engaged in proselytising work, which is not only illegal but will negatively impact India’s complex social hierarchy. In effect, the Indian government is allowing the long-term balkanisation of the country, because wherever Hindus have become a minority in India, separatist movements have cropped up.

Gandhi roots for Teresa

I don’t get invited to luxury car launches. Or to wine festivals. But this landed in my inbox not too long ago: ”…invites you to an official interfaith gathering to honour Nobel Laureate, the late Mother Teresa of Kolkata India (sic) and pay tribute to her selfless service to the poor.” Boldly underlined was the name of the guest speaker: Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of the deranged M.K. Gandhi. The meeting was held in a central Auckland church.

Curiously, the person who sent me the invite asked me not to write about the meeting. I can’t figure why. Can you?

Source :

सृष्टि रचना पर प्रश्न करने वाले नास्तिक मित्र को आर्य मित्र का उत्तर

नास्तिक मित्र
द्वारा अपने आक्रोशित मन से सृष्टि की पूर्णता पर प्रश्नचिन्ह लगाने का असफल प्रयास किया गया । उनके प्रश्नों की समीक्षा देखते है ।
दावा –
जैसे हम जानते हैं की प्रथ्वी आग का गोला थी और ठंढे होने पर इसपर जीवन आरम्भ हुआ । यदि हम यह माने की पृथ्वी ईश्वर द्वारा बनाया हुआ घर है तो जिसपर हम निवास करते हैं ,तो ईश्वर ने सीधा सीधा पृथ्वी को आज जैसा ही क्यों न बना दिया? आग का गोला बना के लाखो साल बाद इंसान को क्यों बनाया? ईश्वर ने सीधा सीधा रहने लायक बना के इंसान की उत्पत्ति क्यों नहीं की?
समीक्षा – वाह क्या मुर्खता की पराकाष्ठा दिखाई है ? इन महाशय का कहना है की ईश्वर ने इतना समय लिए बिना सीधा पृथ्वी और मनुष्य को उत्पन्न क्यूँ नही किया ?? मैं पूछता हु की हालांकि यह विग्यांविरुद्ध , सृष्टिं नियम विरुद्ध है फिर भी अगर इश्वर ऐसा कर भी दे तो ये नास्तिक फिर भी कहेंगे की ईश्वर ने जब सीधा पृथ्वी को ही बना दिया तो हम इंसानों के लिए आवश्यक सामग्री भी बना देता जैसे की विज्ञान के आविष्कार यथा car , skooter , mobile , train इत्यादि । पुनः यदि ऐसा संभव है तो सीधा प्रलय भी क्योंकर न हो ?
नियमबद्धता का ही नाम विज्ञान है , पुनः आधुनिक विज्ञानं को ही सब कुछ मानने वाले नास्तिक इसी विज्ञानं को ही नहीं जानते । यदि ईश्वर सीधा पृथ्वी को बना दे तो जो वैज्ञानिक सृष्टि निर्माण की प्रक्रिया खोज रहे है वो कभी सफल हो पायेंगे जब पृथ्वी बिना नियमबद्धता के ही अस्तित्व में आ गयी हो ? पुनः उन महान वैज्ञानिकों के पुरुषार्थ का कोई फल ना मिलने पर ये नास्तिक इस अन्याय का दोष भी ईश्वर पर थोपने से बाज नहीं आयेंगे ।
लगता है नास्तिक  जी ने ईश्वर को कुरान का अल्ला समझ रखा है ।
दावा –
पृथ्वी 100% परफेक्ट नहीं है यंहा कंही समुन्द्र ही समुन्द्र है, तो कंही रेत ही रेत तो कंही जंगल ही जंगल। जापान में जंहा रोज भूकंप आते हैं तो अरब जैसे देशो में पानी ही नहीं जबकि चेरापुंजी में वर्षा ही वर्षा होती है । कंही लोग सूखे से मर रहे हैं तो कंही लोग बाढ़ से , कंही ज्वालामुखी फटते रहते हैं । कंही हजारो फिट खाइयाँ हैं तो कंही हजारो फिट पहाड़ जंहा रहना संभव नहीं। कंही बिजली गिरने से लोग मारे जाते हैं,क्या मारे जाने वाले लोग ईश्वर के बच्चे नहीं हैं?
समीक्षा –
इनका कथन है की पृथ्वी 100 % perfect नही है कहीं समुन्द्र ही समुन्द्र तो कही मरुस्थल व् कही खाई
ऐसा होना ये imperfection मानते है मैं पूछना चाहता हु की आप के अनुसार क्या होना चाहिए ? कैसे पृथ्वी को design करना चाहिए था ??
चलिए ईश्वर की रचना के विपरीत कल्पना करके देखते है क्या होगा ?
समुद्र की स्थिति की कितनी सम्भावनाए हो सकती है
सम्पूर्ण पृथ्वी पर समुद्र ही होता तो सिर्फ जलीय जीव ही रह पाते पुनः मनुष्य व अन्य जानवरों को आप कहाँ रखते केशव जी अरे इन जीवो व मनुष्यों की छोडिये आप खुद कहाँ रहते?
एक सम्भावना यह भी है सिर्फ थोड़े ही मात्र में बहुत जगहों पर जल हो
लेकिन यहाँ प्रश्न फिर से होगा की बड़े या छोटे अनेकों समुद्री जीवों का थोड़े ही जल में रहना कैसे सम्भव होता ? पुनः थोड़े ही जल में रहना उन जीवों के लिए बंधन रूप होगा स्वतंत्रता नहीं होगी जो की उनके लिए अन्याय होगा ।
समुद्र ही नही होता बल्कि थल ही होता तो भी जलीय जीवों को कैसे रखते ?
इसीलिए समुद्र व थल दोनों की अवश्यकता रहेगी । किसी निश्चित मात्र में ही समुद्र होगा ।
पुनः उपरी वर्णित बातें थल व् रेगिस्तान के बारे में भी समझ लीजियेगा ।
रेगिस्तान में भी जीव रहते है ।
ज्वालामुखी से ही पहाड़ बनते है और सब जानते ह की पहाड़ कितने उपयोगी है खनिज पदार्थ प्राप्त होते है , हमरे घर बनाने में उपयोगी है , सड़कें बनाने में और मुख्यतः नदियाँ पहाड़ों से बहकर समुद्र में मिलती है व् नदियों का पानी पीने के लिए उपयोग होता है अगर केशव जी के अनुसार ईश्वर पहाड़ नहीं बनता तो नदियों को बहाव देने के लिए क्या आपके तथाकथित महात्मा बुद्ध को बुलाना पड़ता ??
इस से पता चला कहीं समुद्र ,कहीं पहाड़ कही थल ऐसी व्यवस्था ही सही होगी ।
आपने प्रश्न करने से पहले यह भी न सोचा की ये सभी समुद्र व् पहाड़ एक दुसरे से किस प्रकार सम्बन्ध रखते है ।आपकी बुद्धि की क्या दाद दें ?
प्रत्येक विज्ञानं व् सामान्य ज्ञान का विद्यार्थी भी जानता है की पर्यावरण विज्ञानं के अनुसार इन बाढ़ , भूकंप , सूखे के लिए हम इंसान ही उत्तरदायी है प्रकृति का अत्यधिक दोहन करने के कारण ।
नास्तिक जी कृपया पुनः पर्यावरण विज्ञानं पढने की कोशिश करें ।
नास्तिक  जी आपको हर जगह रहने की ही फ़िक्र सता रही है ??
हर जगह सिर्फ रहने के लिए ही नही होती ।
यहाँ पर एक और बात है केशव जी हर जगह सुरक्षा पर अपनी चिंता जता रहे है अब इनको बताते है की पूर्ण सृष्टि में आपकी किस प्रकार सुरक्षा भी की गयी है ।
पृथ्वी की सुरक्षा के लिए सूर्य , चन्द्रमा व् बृहस्पति गृह का भी भूमिका है
जब भी कोई उल्कापिंड आता है तो पहले उसे बृहस्पति गृह अपने गुरुत्व बल से खिंच लेता यदि वह पृथ्वी की सीमा में आ भी जाये तो उसे चन्द्रमा के गुरुत्व बल से सामना करना पड़ता है व् कुछ उल्कापिंड सूर्य में समा जाते है । अब यदि पृथ्वी पर भी गिरे तो अधिकतर भाग समुद्र , रेगिस्तान , खाई आदि है व् अधिकतर उल्का पिंड भी यही गिरते है । अब देखिये ईश्वर की व्यवस्था में इनका कितना उपयोग है ? यही नही पृथ्वी की सीमा में प्रवेश करते ही वायुमंडल के अत्यधिक घर्षण से बड़ा उल्का पिंड ध्वस्त होकर कई भागों में विभक्त हो जाता है ।
कहिये नास्तिक  जी कैसी लगी सृष्टि की पूर्णता ।
दावा -आस्तिको का तर्क है की सभी चीजो का रचियेता ईशश्वर है और उसकी प्रत्येक रचना का कुछ उद्देश्य होता है ,तो हैजे, एड्स, केंसर आदि के सूक्ष्म जीवाणु को किस उद्देश्य से बनाया है ईश्वर ने?
मरे हुए बच्चो को किस उदेश्य से पैदा करता है ईश्वर?
जैसा की सभी जानते हैं की मानव शरीर में लगभग 200 रचनाये ऐसी हैं जिनका मनुष्य के लिए कोई उपयोग नहीं जैसे अपेंडिक्स , अब यदि हमें ईश्वर ने बनाया तो ईश्वर कैसे यह मुर्खता बार बार करता जा रहा है और अनुपयोगी चीजो को बनता जा रहा है?
कैसा परफेक्ट ईश्वर है?
समीक्षा –
यह सवाल पूछ कर आपने बहुत अच्छा किया ताकि इस के उत्तर में नास्तिकों के कुकृत्य के बारे में भी बता दिया जाये ।
aids का virus एक चिम्पांजी और मनुष्य के यौन सम्बन्ध से पैदा हुआ था
इस बारे में यह धारणा भी ह की चिम्पांजी का मांस खाने पर यह वायरस mutation से बढ़ कर aids का virus बन गया था
व एक और धरना है की us america में सबसे पहले समलैंगिक पुरुषों में यह पाया गया
अब उपरोक्त तीनो कारणों से स्पष्ट हुआ की aids का virus सृष्टि नियम विरुद्ध मुर्खता के कार्यों का परिणाम था लेकिन यह स्वार्थी मनुष्य चार्वाक के अनुयायी जिन्हें यौन ही सब कुछ दिखे वो ईश्वर पर इसका दोष लगाने में कैसे पीछे हटेंगे ??
बाकी जीवाणु भी इसी प्रकार सृष्टि नियमविरुद्ध कार्यों का ही परिणाम है ।
नास्तिक  जी मरे हुए बच्चों का विषय तो कर्मफल का है यह विषयांतर प्रश्न उठाकर भागने का असफल प्रयास न करियेगा ।
apandix का अवश्य कोई कार्य है ही वर्ना अधिक वजन उठाने पर ये ख़राब क्यूँ होती ?
यदि madical science शरीर विज्ञानं पूरा जानती तब तो यह प्रश्न उठ सकता था लेकिन अभी तो विज्ञानं को और भी बातें खोजनी है इसलिए आपका यह तथ्य बालू की रेत से बनाये महलों के सामान ध्वस्त होता है ।
अब आप ये निर्णय कर लें की मुर्खता किसने की है ?
दावा -आस्तिक कहते हैं सूरज समय पर उगता है, प्रथ्वी अपनी धुरी पर घूमती है, 24 घंटे में अपना चक्कर पूरा करती है,ग्रहों का अपने परिक्रमापथ पर एक निर्धारति गति से घूमना आदि ईश्वर के नियम हैं।
पर, यह तर्क भी तर्कहीन है और आस्तिको के अल्पज्ञान का परिचारक है ।
गंभीरता से सोचने पर हम पाते हैं की प्रतिदिन सूर्य के उगने और अस्त होने में एक आध मिनट का फर्क रहता है ,फर्क इतना है की सर्दियों में राते 13 घंटे की तक की हो जाती है और इतने ही समय का दिन हो जाता है गर्मियों में ।
इसी प्रकार पृथ्वी कभी भी 365 दिन में सूर्य की परिक्रमा नहीं पूरी कर पाती है , समय घटता बढ़ता रहता है।
तो फिर यह कहना की सृष्टि ईश्वर के नियम से चल रही है सरासर मुर्खता है। एक प्रश्न और उठता है यंहा की यदि ईश्वर ने सृष्टि को नियमों से बाँधा हुआ है तो ईश्वर के लिए कौन नियम निर्धारित करता है?
समीक्षा- पहली बात कि जो आस्तिक यह बात कहते है वह अपने सामान्य ज्ञान के अनुसार नियमबद्धता को जानकर ऐसा कहते है इस हिसाब उनका कहना सही भी है ।
लेकिन यहाँ जो तथ्य दिखाए गए है उनसे नियमबद्धता टूटती नही देखते है कैसे ?
हम आधुनिक विज्ञान के कारण जानकर पता करते है की ऐसा क्यूँ होता है तो हमारा विश्वाश ईश्वर के प्रति और दृढ होता है ।
नास्तिक  जी ने गंभीरता से सोचकर यह आक्षेप लगाया है की प्रतिदिन व् हर साल सूर्योदय व सुर्यस्त में फर्क आता है लेकिन यदि नास्तिक  जी थोडा और गंभीरता की गहराई में जाते तब तो सत्य का पता चलता लेकिन इन्हें ईश्वर पर दोष लगाने का बहाना मिल गया तो और गहराई में क्यों जाये भला ??
जिस परिवर्तन की बात यहाँ की गयी है वह पृथ्वी का अपने अक्ष पर झुकाव के कारण होता है । अब इस झुकाव के कारण पृथ्वी से सूर्य की स्थिति बदलती रहती है एक वर्ष तक । अब इस स्थिति के बदलने से जो पथ बनता है वह लगभग 8 अंक जैसी होती है । और यह पथ हर वर्ष वैसा ही बनता है बदलता नही । केशव जी इसे कहते है नियमबद्धता और इसे कहते है पूर्णता ।
पृथ्वी अपने अक्ष पर घूर्णन करते हुए उसी अक्ष के सापेक्ष साथ ही वृत्ताकार आकृति का अनुसरण करती है यह वृत्ताकार आकृति का पथ 26000 साल में एक बार ख़त्म होता है व् 26000 सालों के हर प्रवाह के अंत में पृथ्वी का अक्ष एक तारे की और इंगित होता है अर्थात 26000 साल खत्म होने के अगले 26000 साल के प्रवाह में भी अंत में पृथ्वी का अक्ष उसी तारे की और इंगित होता है ।
और उस तारे की और इंगित होने पर पृथ्वी की ice age पर effect पड़ता है ।
नास्तिक  जी इसे कहते ह पूर्णता ।
अभी कहानी ख़त्म नहीं हुयी है पृथ्वी सूर्य के चारों और elliptical orbit में घुमती है ।अब यह elliptical orbit का पथ भी सूर्य के केंद्र के सापेक्ष ऊपर निचे गति करता है यह गति भी कई सालों में संपन्न होती है ।
अब इतने सरे complication के बाद भी नियमबद्धता बनी हुयी है यहाँ तक सूर्य भी आकाशगंगा के केंद्र के चरों घूमता है और वह तारा जिस की और पृथ्वी का अक्ष इंगित होता है वह भी सूर्य की तरह इस प्रकार के complications से घिरा हुआ है अब इतने complication के बाद भी पृथ्वी का प्रत्येक 26000 साल के चरण में उस तारे की और इंगित करना व सूर्य का हर साल अपने पथ पर पुनः अनुगमन करना सृष्टि की पूर्णता को ही साबित करता है ।
अब सामान्य आस्तिक बंधु इन complications को न जानकर भी इस नियमबद्धता के सिद्धांत को अपने सामान्य ज्ञान से बतलाते है तो उसमे कुछ गलत नही ।
नास्तिक  जी आप भी अपने पूर्वाग्रह को छोड़कर सूर्य की तरह सत्य पथ के अनुगामी बनिए ।
अतः हमें अंत में पता चला कि सृष्टि में अनेक रहस्य भरे पड़े है जिन्हें इन्सान पूर्ण रूप से नही जानता इसलिए सृष्टि को बिना जाने ईश्वर पर आक्षेप लगाना मुर्खता है ।
इसीलिए वेद में आया
की इस सृष्टि की उत्पत्ति कैसे हुयी यह कोई नही जानता क्यूँ कि यह रहस्य जानने वाले विद्वानों की उत्पत्ति भी बाद में हुयी ।
नास्तिक  जी आपने यह मन्त्र दिया था व् आक्षेप लगाया लेकिन यही मन्त्र आपकी पोस्ट का उत्तर बना ।
नास्तिक  जी यहाँ सृष्टि की पूर्णता सिद्ध हुयी अतः पूर्णता सिद्ध होने पर ईश्वर की भी सिद्धि मेरी पिछली पोस्ट के अनुसार जिसमे आपने ईश्वर के कारण पर प्रश्न उठाया था ।
इसलिए अब आपको सत्य को ग्रहण करने से पीछे नही हटना चाहिए , व सत्य से भागने का असफल प्रयास नही करना चाहिए ।

A critique of the beliefs of the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON) : Dr. Vibhu


The Hare Krishna Movement, which has re-named itself The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), considers itself to be the modern core of Hinduism.  Although Krishna lived over 5000 years ago, ISKCON today follows the teachings of Chaitanya who was born in Bengal in 1486 and who popularized the movement all over India. He is part of a lineage of successive disciples who, variously, taught the worship of Krishna, or the goddess Lakshmi or Rudra (referring to the god Shiva).  Its principal scriptures were The Bhagavad-Geeta (The Song of God) and the Shrimad Bhagavatam (the story of the Personality of Godhead Shri Krishna Bhagavan).

Interestingly, ISKCON teaches that Absolute Truth is contained in the Vedas, the oldest scriptures in the world. Other key ISKCON beliefs are: (i) belief in one God. (ii) the doctrine of Advaita (non-dualism) – that our souls are part and parcel of God (iii) The love of God should be practised by chanting the holy names of the Lord, most easily done by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra: “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare”. (iv) the essence of the Vedas is found in the Bhagavad-gita, a literal record of Krishna’s words which was first put into writing about 5000 years ago.

Evidently implicit in the synopsis of the ISKCON beliefs summarised above is the notion that God reincarnates into human form (the belief that God came to earth 5000 years ago in the personage of Krishna).   Svami Dayanand Sarasvati tests this idea: Does God incarnate or not?, in his book Satyarth Prakash (‘Light of Truth’).  In Chapter VII of this great book, titled God and the Vedas, his answer is an unqualified No because:

It is stated in the Yajur Veda: “He is unborn.”…. He overspreads all…. He is pure, is never born and never takes on a human form.” It is clear from these quotations from the Vedas that God was, and never is, born.

He then addresses the question: ‘But Krishna says in the Gita, “Whenever there is decay of virtue, I take on a human form.” GEETA (4: 7) What is your answer to that?

Dayanand response is: Being opposed to the Veda, the Geeta cannot be held to be authoritative (ISKCON seems to agree with Dayanand on this view of the Vedas because one of its core principles is the statement “the Absolute Truth is contained in the Vedas, the oldest scriptures in the world”).

Dayanand goes on to suggest:“ It is possible that Krishna, being very virtuous and keen to further the cause of righteousness, might have wished to be born again and again, at different times, to protect the good and punish the wicked. If such was the case then it was harmless because whatever the good and the great possess – their wealth, their bodies and even their heart is at the service of humanity. Nevertheless, Krishna could never be God.

Dayanand, further, answers the question “Why do people then believe in the twenty-four incarnations of God?” with the following reasons: (i) a lack of knowledge of the Vedas (ii) such people have been led astray by sectarian ideologies and (iii) uneducated people are susceptible to ignorance, which is why they hold and propagate such false beliefs.

He then goes on to reject the objection that `God reincarnates into human form to destroy the wicked (as Raama did with Raavana)’ by asserting: “God – without being incarnated – not only has created this world, but is sustaining it and can dissolve it into its component elements. By being Omnipresent, God also pervaded the bodies of men like Kansa and Raavana and could have, at His will, cut off their vital life energy so instantly killing them. Only a fool would argue that the Supreme Spirit – possessed of Infinite Power, attributes and activity – needs to take on human form, to become subject to births and deaths, to kill an insignificant creature.”

Next Dayanand addresses another theoretical objection: “That God incarnates for the salvation of his devotees cannot be true, for, if those devotees conduct themselves according to His Law, He has the power to save them. Is the destruction of a Kansa or a Raavana…. even more difficult than the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the sun, the moon and the earth and other planets? Whoever reflects upon such acts of God cannot deny that there is no one like Him, nor shall ever be.”….”The reincarnation of God based on the idea that space entered a womb can never be true, because both space and God – being Infinite and Omnipresent – can neither enter nor exit. God’s leaving or entering could be possible only if it was the case that places exist where He is not present. But God was already present in (such a) womb as well as being outwith of it, so how can it be held that He went into and then came out of it?!  It defies intelligent reasoning to believe in and say such things about God?”  Dayanand concludes:  it should so be understood that Christ and others also were not incarnations of God; they were all men.

How did God reveal the Vedas, and who to? Dayanand cites the SHATHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3 for an answer: In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Yajur, Saama and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, Aaditya and Angira, respectively.”

He proffers the reason that at the beginning of the creation of humanity, ‘those four alone were the purest of all and so, God revealed the Vedas into their souls.

Q.What evidence proves that the Veda in Sanskrit is of Divine origin and not the work of man?

The scripture in which God is described as Holy, Omniscient, Pure in nature, character and attributes, Just, Merciful etc.; which in no way opposes the laws of nature, reason, the evidence of direct cognition, etc. nor the teachings of the highly learned altruistic teachers of humanity (A’ptas), and the intuition of pure souls, and in which the laws of science, attributes of matter and the soul are propounded as they are to be inferred from the order of nature as fixed by God is the book of Divine revelation.  Only the Vedas fulfil all the above conditions, hence they are the revealed books and not books, like the Bible and the Q’uran.

[i)Dayanand critiques the Bible and Koran in chapters 13 and 14 of his book.  (ii) It will also be seen from the preceding paragraph that the Geeta does not fulfil these criteria either – though it undoubtedly contains much wisdom of great beauty its brevity – in contrast to the 20,000 mantras in the Vedas – is clear proof that it is signally not a comprehensive and complete scripture of God’s Word or Law.]

Dayanand then discusses another objection, namely: “There is no necessity for the Veda to be revealed by God because mankind ca, over time, incrementally deduce all knowledge.”  [Built into this query is the notion that Krishna – an incredibly wise and learned man – intuited all Vedic knowledge and summarised it into the Geeta.”].  Dayanand rejects this as follows:

“No, man cannot do that, because there can be no effect without a cause. For example, do uncivilised tribes ever become enlightened autonomously without being instructed by others? That is also true of men in civilized communities; they also need to be taught in order to become educated. Similarly, had God communicated the knowledge of the Veda to the earliest sages, and had they not, in turn, taught other men all mankind would have remained ignorant.  If a newborn child is removed from his parents and kept in isolation and cared for by illiterate people or animals, he would develop into an ignorant and illiterate adult. [The tale of Tarzan vindicates this reasoning.]

Dayanand goes on to assert that “the people of Egypt, Greece, or the Continent of Europe were devoid of learning before knowledge spread to them from India. In the same way, before Columbus and other Europeans went to America, the natives there had been without any learning for hundreds and thousands of years.  However, some of them have now become enlightened after receiving education from the Europeans.” Dayanand then quote the classical work of philosophy – Yoga Shastra written by Patanjli – that, analogously: “Just, as today we have become enlightened only after being taught by our teachers, likewise were – at the beginning of the world – Agni and the other three Rishis (sages) taught by the greatest of all teachers – God.” YOGA SHASTRA SAMADHI, 26.



This article exposes the reasons why certain ISKCON’s beliefs are erroneous, contradictory or false, particularly as reiterated below:

  • Monotheism is incompatible with a belief in deities such as Rudra, Laxmi, Rudra, Shiva and Krishna.
  • The fallacies in one of its main books – the Bhaghavad Puraana which also greatly traduced Krishna, the man.
  • The Geeta cannot be the Word of God – it is a book written by Krishna’s disciples to quote a great rallying speech he gave in the heat of battle to motivate Arjuna.  It defies belief that 20000 mantras of the four books of the Vedas could have been compressed into one motivational speech during a lull in a war; clearly the original words of the great man that Krishna was have since been edited by poetic licence – that such a great practitioner of the Vedic Dharma would have suffered a fit of megalomania to the extent of usurping God is surely nonsensical?
  • Krishna undoubtedly was probably the greatest man to come out of India since the Mahabharata period 5000 years ago. However, over time his admirers seem to have not only elevated him to the status of God but also have replaced the conventional key names of God (as derived from the Vedas such as Eeshvar, Bhagvaan, Brahma and Aum in particular) with his name!  Each Veda mantra, conventionally, begins with His name Aum e.g. Aum, bhuur, bhuvaha, svaha…Fortunately, ISCKON does not seen to have gone as far as using the word Krishna instead of Aum in this context (because such a step would, in one fell swoop, destroy the exact scientific prosody of the verses of the Veda).
  • Elsewhere in his book, Dayanand asserts that “the account of the life of Krishna, as given in the Mahabharata, is true; that Krishna’s nature, attributes, character and conduct are all those of an apta (an altruistic, wide and saintly leader); there is no mention in that epic stating that he committed any sinful act during his whole life. But the author of the Bhagavatam has falsely attributed numerous vices and sinful practices, such as: the theft of milk, curd, and butter, adultery with a female servant called Kubja, flirtation with other people’s wives in the Ras mandal and so on. On the basis of this (false) account of Krishna’s life, the followers of other religions criticise him; had there been no Bhagvat, great men like Krishna would not have been wrongly lowered in the estimation of the world.
  • It must be asked of ISKCON, somewhat rhetorically, why Lord Rama’s position, nowadays, seems to have been relegated to insignificance?