Rahul Gandhi’s Critique of Manusmriti Captures Ambedkar’s Vision of Women’s Equality

RAHUL GANDHI’S clarion call in Pune on August 22, urging thousands of girl students to smash patriarchy and reject the Manusmriti’s prescription of women’s subordination, echoes B.R. Ambedkar’s trenchant critique of Manu. Ambedkar held Manu responsible for the degradation of women in Indian society and for denying them freedom, independence and individual agency. 

Ambedkar’s Indictment of Manusmriti’s Patriarchal Nature

Rahul’s bold and courageous rejection of Manusmriti for its sinister prescription that women during their lifetime have no independence and individual identity because during their childhood they are dependent on their fathers, in youth on husbands, and in old age on their sons captured the utterances of Ambedkar in his 1950 article, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Hindu Woman: Who Was Responsible for It?’ It forms part of Volume 17, Part II of the Writings and Speeches of B.R. Ambedkar.  

Giving a detailed account of the high positions of women in the period prior to the advent of Manu, Ambedkar very convincingly explains their downfall and sub-human status primarily due to the law prescribed by Manu. 

It is well documented fact of history that on December 25, 1927 Manusmriti was burnt by Ambedkar for its role in perpetuating untouchability and creating an inflexible caste hierarchy, which he  described with anguish as “graded social inequality”, fostering in his words, a “descending order of contempt and ascending order of reverence.” One of the potent reasons behind his decision to consign Manusmriti to flames was due to the way it treated women in a highly  derogatory  manner robbing their freedom and independence. 

In the aforementioned article of 1950, Ambedkar cites why Manu through his scriptural law laid down iron clad provisions to totally stifle freedom of women  under any circumstances. Manu, according to Ambedkar, sacrifices the freedom of women and subjects them to men completely with the sole aim of safeguarding two families, their maternal families and the families to which they marry.

He repeatedly cites Manu stating that a woman at no stage of her life, be it during childhood or during youth and old age could ever lead an independent life even in her home. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. The denial of the right for women to divorce remained one of the defining aspects of Manusmriti, affirming no independent agency for women to shape her destiny and life. “His law against divorce” Ambedkar remarked, “had a very different motive.” “It was not,” he noted with anguish, “to tie up a man to a woman but it was to tie up the woman to a man and to leave the man free.”

Ambedkar’s explanation of why Manu prescribed such laws relegating women to such an abominable position is very revealing and eye opening. “There is nothing new or startling,” Ambedkar wrote, “in the Laws of Manu about woman.” “They are the views of the Brahmins ever since Brahmanism was born in India,” he noted. 

Giving an insightful explanation Ambedkar asserted that, “Before Manu they existed only as a matter of social theory. What Manu did was to convert what was a social theory into the law of the State. The second thing they do not know is the reason which led Manu to impose these disabilities upon women, Sudras and women were the two chief sections of the Aryan Society which were flocking to join the religion of the Buddha and thereby undermining the foundation of Brahmanic Religion. Manu wanted to stem the tide of women flowing in direction of Buddhism.”

So, what Manu did was that the social theory concerning women’s subordinate status in society was formally made the law of the State of that period of history. The second reason was that Manu by imposing such restrictions on women and taking away their freedom was disabling them to opt for Buddhism. 

Manu, the Constitution and the Politics at Present

Rahul Gandhi’s strident denunciation of the Manusmriti in Pune, and his appeal to young women to reject its scriptural injunctions that deny them identity and independence, amounted to a direct challenge to the BJP and RSS’s continuing engagement with the text.

It is well known that Prime Minister Modi and several of his cabinet colleagues and other leaders, with their deep roots in BJP and RSS, always remain tuned to the vision of Manu. On November 26, 1949, the Constitution of India was adopted and enacted. Four days later on November 30, the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser, in an editorial, rejected it and pleaded for Manusmriti, which Ambedkar held to be responsible for, among others, for demeaning the women’s individuality and their independent agency. It read:

“But in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day, his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

Manu, according to Ambedkar, transformed a prevailing social theory that subordinated women into the law of the State. Ambedkar rejected such outmoded and pernicious ideas of statecraft. The BJP and RSS, however, continue to draw upon aspects of this worldview. Rahul Gandhi’s forceful denunciation of the Manusmriti in 2026, and his appeal to young women in Pune to shatter patriarchy, therefore recall Ambedkar’s burning of the text in 1927.