I understand people would be triggered reading the name "Manu", but do read the rest of the speech, he makes some other pertinent points about decolonisation of our system.
De-colonising the Common Law? Ditch the one thing that separates the Indian legal system from a Hindutva-driven version of Sharia? Say goodbye to modern legal practice for sure.
Are you aware of the tradition of debate and logic in ancient Indian philosophy? Are you aware of the various schools of thought and logic in the Indian tradition?
Agreed that common law is something valuable and worth keeping, but can we not revisit our ancient Indian logic and re-view common law in that light and then decide if it's bad or worse?
Atleast we will have something more than someone's 'perception and ant-hindu bias' to reject something (if we happen to be on that page).
And callings the "laws of Manu" an actual legal system doesn't make it any more legally valid than the Laws of Cricket make it a source of jurisprudence.
Ancient Indian jurisprudence needs to be looked into. Some of the theories are highly nuanced. I researched on these for a penology paper For eg.- Punishment depending on the ranking of the individual in the social strata. A king's punsihment to be 10000 time greater than the degree of the crime. A shudra's punishment to be equal to the crime. Upon removing the caste element from it, what comes out is an excellent model of justice delivery. Similarly, if you closely look at Ram Charit Manas' choupayees on the conversation between Bharat and Ram after the demise of Dashrath in relation to the rule over Ayodhya, you could find gems on inheritance jurisprudence. Conversation between Kevat and Ram is an excellent example of future consideration.
TBH, I don't think he himself believes all the BS he spoke. Post-Retirement jobs ka chakkar for sure! He knows, the way things are going, his future generations have no future in India. So, he's trying his best to appease the rulers. As if that will work, LOL. Everyone is going to bear the brunt of this RW bootlicking behavior. The sooner we speak up (for real) the better!
"Upon removing the caste element from it, what comes out is an excellent model of justice delivery."
That's the point, you can't. Caste is the immutable law in the so-called "ancient Indian Jurisprudence". It's like saying let's have common law without any concept of legality or rule of law. Caste circumscribes the laws of Manu, not the other way around.
Also, there is something called mitigating and aggravating circumstances in modern penal theory. You would find there is nothing novel about this ancient social theory of punishment.
It's ancient for a reason. That is, it's dated and obsolete.
When Oxford and Cambridge teach Roman Law (which justified slavery and the earliest known forms of legalised racism), they do so not to glorify slavery or racism but to teach about the origins of legal doctrines, the law in the context of society, culture and history, logic and reasoning.
Caste is a 500-year-old concept that has its roots in the Iberian colonisation nothing to do with the at least 5000 years old Jaati-Varna system. Jaatis could move up and down the Varna system and were not "codified/ossified" as "Castes" until our colonial masters brought their "enlightened" common law system to our land.
Crime and Punishment evolve over a period of time. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ancient Indic jurisprudence was incapable of evolution.
Decolonisation in an important and forward looking philosophy. Has been consistently promoted by all ideologies in India be it the left or the right. These dumb comments on this thread is because we are now polarised like never before. Wokes have always been in favour of decolonisation. And they cry as to why no one understands them or listen to them. Now the conservatives take up decolonisation. Now pretty sure wokes will cry and make arguments against decolonisation by saying "aPprOpriaTiOn".
I know half the people talking about Hinduism perceive it to be read interchangeably with Brahminism. It's a completely different ballgame altogether. Please recognise the varied indigenous societies, cultures, philosophies, perspectives and ideologies that exist apart from Brahminism. Let's revive and discuss the systems that have governed Adivasi cultures, NE civilisations, coastal communities etc all of which are as Indic and hindu in nature. (Hindu everywhere here refers to the culture that has prevailed in this subcontinent - south of indus - not the current Brahminical hinduism that has taken over popular parlance when it comes to hinduism).
Since no one has mentioned it so far, which is kind of surprising for me, let me do it:
Ancient Indian schools of philosophy - Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. Ancient Indian schools of logic - Vaisheshika, Catuskoti, Nyaya, Jain, Buddhist, Navya - Nyaya.
Every single mode of thought- let's take the concept of God for example... Be it athiesm, polytheism, monotheism, duality, non-duality, permutations and combinations of all this has been discussed in depth which is mind boggling. Behind every such philosophy is enormous literature. All this predates the Renaissance thinkers and other people who we hold the as the "father" of philosophy. There's really nothing that modern philosophers say that isn't covered here. Unfortunate that this knowledge had been restricted to Brahmins and only in Sanskrit all these years. Hope eventually everyone figures these things out, democratizes this knowledge and embraces. them. There was a lot that was messed up in this country's past but knowledge such as this shouldn't be shunned because it comes from such times. We need tremendous non-brahminical people bringing all these philosophies to the forefront.
I, for one, know basically nothing about pre-British laws in India. Legal history in law school only began from the British. I know John Rawls conception of justice but honestly no idea what the Arthashastra conception looks like.
Is there a book or something which does a comparative study between ancient / medieval / Sultanate / Mughal and colonial legal systems in India?
India CaMe fRoM BriTS is the most colonial thing to say. Most Indians don't even realize that.
1. India does not have 'history'. It has 'itihasa'. History is a narrative. While 'itihasa' is 'essence of the past'. Watch this to know more. The point is that 'essence of the past' has been captured rather 'poetically' without pushing a grand narrative like the way it has been pushed by europeans.
As a result when people look at India's past, they end up looking from european view of the world. This makes the eurocentric viewer think that there was no 'India' before.
This shloka means: โThe country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.
Sure, there was no India, because there was 'Bharata'.
3. Indians did not view time as a linear progression linked to the contemporary ruler. It is said of India, that rulers used to come and go, but the grassroots remained the same throughout. It did not matter to the average peasant who the king was because the rulers used to battle it out as per rules of dharma - without damaging lives of ordinary people. Time for Indians was rather 'cyclical'. That's why India was not imagined as a 'political entity', but rather as a 'timeless cultural entity' with eternal values such as 'sarv dharma sambhaav' and 'vasudhaiv kutumbakam'.
Sure, there was no India - then how come someone in the South has the name, 'Ramasubramaniam', someone in the east has the name, 'Ramanuj', someone in the north has the name 'Ramdhari', and someone in the west has the name 'Ramdas (Athawale)'. These names have been there long before any foreign influence came to India.
There was no India from the perspective of a common law, rule or culture. Vishnu Purana is a poem, not really a historical or geographical narrative. If you have actually read the Mahabharata in full, you must have come across the place with references to the individual journeys of the Pandava brothers before Rajasuya Yajna to different parts of the land. They met multiple groups people, with completely different norms and culture and couldn't even fight half of them, let alone defeat them. But those people gave them some diplomatic gifts and then they came home claiming that they have won over those regions to merit calling Yudhistir the Samrat. The point is that of course the landmass was there, but that does not mean it used to have common rules, culture, standards or norms. There are almost 96 versions of Ramayana alone in this country with wildly differing narratives. The oldest manuscript is not even found in India but in Nepal. So considering on the basis of ancient texts of there being 'Indian' norms or jurisprudence is a folly. There are communities that followed a federal structure and those that followed an autocratic one. Most of the non-Aryan practices were incomprehensible to Aryans, who wrote bulk of the texts anyway, so all those practices have been completely ignored or only given passing reference to in those texts. This does not mean that one shouldn't study the available texts, but trying to reconstruct a homogenous ancient Indian jurisprudence from those is irrational and illogical. They present very much an incomplete picture of the existing society.
So when we have to talk about 'Indian systems', we're reminded of the existence of 100 different groups in India and directing one's attention to the fact that there is no single homogenous identity to mask what is otherwise understood as a multi-cultural existence.
But when we have to to talk about politics, suddenly, the above fact disappears and India becomes a monolith majoritarian fascist country headed towards nazism.
1. The existence was not multicultural as we understand the term today. These people were also divided by very distinct political boundaries back then and not unified in any standard sense. 2. You are making a lot of assumptions and shifting the goalpost to some fictitious point. I never claimed India to be a fascist monolith or whatever. I live in this country and definitely consider myself to a part of it, not an exception, and certainly not a fascist. I do consider that the current political party in power in Centre and some of the states display considerably fascist tendencies, yes. And since they are in power, their decisions do affect a lot of us. However, I do not think that they represent the idea of India as a country. We can and will do better, so long as people with sense and education keep standing up for human values and humanity, instead of merely showboating. Further, that entire discussion is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed, which was that there does not exist any ancient 'Indian' jurisprudence as a homogenous whole. I have arrived at that conclusion after studying available literature and Indian texts for over two decades. I have already mentioned the reasons behind that conclusion in my earlier comment.
Fair enough, any books comparing laws of major kingdoms / empire that once existed over current Indian territory with the colonial legal systems in India?
Some of Ambedkar's texts on Buddhism have analysed various kingdoms and their legal structures during the time of Buddhism. Some were republics, some democracies, some autocracies and he analyses each one of them saying what he liked and what he didn't in each of them. We have a very diverse past and each one of them demand different study and interpretation. If properly analysed there's enough socio-political diversity within our pre-British history to determine, compare and contrast what works and what doesn't than referring to whitewashed western literature.
What is 'Hindutva-driven version of Sharia?
What is Hindutva?
Are you aware of the tradition of debate and logic in ancient Indian philosophy? Are you aware of the various schools of thought and logic in the Indian tradition?
Agreed that common law is something valuable and worth keeping, but can we not revisit our ancient Indian logic and re-view common law in that light and then decide if it's bad or worse?
Atleast we will have something more than someone's 'perception and ant-hindu bias' to reject something (if we happen to be on that page).
For eg.- Punishment depending on the ranking of the individual in the social strata. A king's punsihment to be 10000 time greater than the degree of the crime. A shudra's punishment to be equal to the crime. Upon removing the caste element from it, what comes out is an excellent model of justice delivery.
Similarly, if you closely look at Ram Charit Manas' choupayees on the conversation between Bharat and Ram after the demise of Dashrath in relation to the rule over Ayodhya, you could find gems on inheritance jurisprudence.
Conversation between Kevat and Ram is an excellent example of future consideration.
That's the point, you can't. Caste is the immutable law in the so-called "ancient Indian Jurisprudence". It's like saying let's have common law without any concept of legality or rule of law. Caste circumscribes the laws of Manu, not the other way around.
Also, there is something called mitigating and aggravating circumstances in modern
penal theory. You would find there is nothing novel about this ancient social theory of punishment.
It's ancient for a reason. That is, it's dated and obsolete.
When Oxford and Cambridge teach Roman Law (which justified slavery and the earliest known forms of legalised racism), they do so not to glorify slavery or racism but to teach about the origins of legal doctrines, the law in the context of society, culture and history, logic and reasoning.
Caste is a 500-year-old concept that has its roots in the Iberian colonisation nothing to do with the at least 5000 years old Jaati-Varna system. Jaatis could move up and down the Varna system and were not "codified/ossified" as "Castes" until our colonial masters brought their "enlightened" common law system to our land.
Crime and Punishment evolve over a period of time. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ancient Indic jurisprudence was incapable of evolution.
Ancient is dated but not obsolete.
Now go read JSD.
These dumb comments on this thread is because we are now polarised like never before. Wokes have always been in favour of decolonisation. And they cry as to why no one understands them or listen to them. Now the conservatives take up decolonisation. Now pretty sure wokes will cry and make arguments against decolonisation by saying "aPprOpriaTiOn".
Ancient Indian schools of philosophy - Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta.
Ancient Indian schools of logic - Vaisheshika, Catuskoti, Nyaya, Jain, Buddhist, Navya - Nyaya.
Unfortunate that this knowledge had been restricted to Brahmins and only in Sanskrit all these years. Hope eventually everyone figures these things out, democratizes this knowledge and embraces. them. There was a lot that was messed up in this country's past but knowledge such as this shouldn't be shunned because it comes from such times. We need tremendous non-brahminical people bringing all these philosophies to the forefront.
I, for one, know basically nothing about pre-British laws in India. Legal history in law school only began from the British. I know John Rawls conception of justice but honestly no idea what the Arthashastra conception looks like.
Is there a book or something which does a comparative study between ancient / medieval / Sultanate / Mughal and colonial legal systems in India?
India CaMe fRoM BriTS is the most colonial thing to say. Most Indians don't even realize that.
1. India does not have 'history'. It has 'itihasa'. History is a narrative. While 'itihasa' is 'essence of the past'. Watch this to know more. The point is that 'essence of the past' has been captured rather 'poetically' without pushing a grand narrative like the way it has been pushed by europeans.
As a result when people look at India's past, they end up looking from european view of the world. This makes the eurocentric viewer think that there was no 'India' before.
2. Vishnu Purana carries this Shloka
เคเคคเฅเคคเคฐเค เคฏเคคเฅเคธเคฎเฅเคฆเฅเคฐเคธเฅเคฏ เคนเคฟเคฎเคพเคฆเฅเคฐเฅเคถเฅเคเฅเคต เคฆเคเฅเคทเคฟเคฃเคฎเฅ เฅค
เคตเคฐเฅเคทเค เคคเคฆเฅ เคญเคพเคฐเคคเค เคจเคพเคฎ เคญเคพเคฐเคคเฅ เคฏเคคเฅเคฐ เคธเคเคคเคคเคฟเค เฅคเฅค
This shloka means: โThe country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.
Sure, there was no India, because there was 'Bharata'.
3. Indians did not view time as a linear progression linked to the contemporary ruler. It is said of India, that rulers used to come and go, but the grassroots remained the same throughout. It did not matter to the average peasant who the king was because the rulers used to battle it out as per rules of dharma - without damaging lives of ordinary people. Time for Indians was rather 'cyclical'. That's why India was not imagined as a 'political entity', but rather as a 'timeless cultural entity' with eternal values such as 'sarv dharma sambhaav' and 'vasudhaiv kutumbakam'.
Sure, there was no India - then how come someone in the South has the name, 'Ramasubramaniam', someone in the east has the name, 'Ramanuj', someone in the north has the name 'Ramdhari', and someone in the west has the name 'Ramdas (Athawale)'. These names have been there long before any foreign influence came to India.
But when we have to to talk about politics, suddenly, the above fact disappears and India becomes a monolith majoritarian fascist country headed towards nazism.
Had kardi aapne.
2. You are making a lot of assumptions and shifting the goalpost to some fictitious point. I never claimed India to be a fascist monolith or whatever. I live in this country and definitely consider myself to a part of it, not an exception, and certainly not a fascist. I do consider that the current political party in power in Centre and some of the states display considerably fascist tendencies, yes. And since they are in power, their decisions do affect a lot of us. However, I do not think that they represent the idea of India as a country. We can and will do better, so long as people with sense and education keep standing up for human values and humanity, instead of merely showboating. Further, that entire discussion is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed, which was that there does not exist any ancient 'Indian' jurisprudence as a homogenous whole. I have arrived at that conclusion after studying available literature and Indian texts for over two decades. I have already mentioned the reasons behind that conclusion in my earlier comment.