A READING OF THE INTRODUCTIONS OF WILLIAM

JONES AND GEORGE BUHLER’S TRANSLATION OF MANUSMRITI

Presented By:-Abhishek.S,

H-1669, 3rd sem.

About the authors Sir William Jones:-Born: 1746Death: 1794Occupation: Puisne Judge of Supreme Court of

Judicature, and also a Philologist.Scholarship: hyper-polyglotist (13+28),genetic relation b/w Indo-European Languages,

translated Manusmriti in 1794. the first to propagate the racial division with the

Aryan invasion within the India.Contributions: Founder of Asiatic Society of

Bengal (1784)and for-runner of the journal Asiatick Researches.

George Buhler:-Born: 1837Death: 1898Occupation: Professor of Oriental Studies and

TranslatorScholarship: published his translations of the

Paiyalachchhi, the oldest Prakrit dictionary.Contributions: Translated the vol.2,1 4 and 25 of

Max Muller’s “The Scared Books of the East”.

On the background of undertaking the translation

Warren Hastings Civil Justice and Policy Executions Judicial Plan of 1772: “all suits regarding the

inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages, or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mohametans and those of the Shaster with respect to Gentoos shall be invariably adhered to.”

Into Persian by 12 Brahmin Pandits “A Code of Gentoo Laws or Ordinations of Pandits”

(1776) Nathaniel Halhed: Orientalist, Philologist and a

member of the Bengal Squad.

Summary of the introductions William Jones in the very beginning describes his principle

motives “to know and to publish” manusmriti, so as to let the Indians be in possession of their laws which in turn confirms the colonial administration.

The time period of the composition of the text. Then he draws some parallel comparisons between Manu and

Minos and similarly between Sanskrit and Egyptian institutes of law.

Later Jones shares the remarks given by Vedas, Vrihaspathi, Vyasa and others on the importance of Manu.

Jones focuses on the below four commentators: Medhatithi— reckoned prolix and unequalGovindaraj– concise but obscureDharani– often erroneousFinally Jones speaks about Kulluca Bhatta whom he has almost

“implicitly” followed in his translation.

Then he states the sanctity offered to the text and his hardships in reading the text.

Later he concludes his preface by constant contrasts.

George Buhler

Buhler divides his introduction into 3 parts.1. The origin of Manusmriti according to the Hindus.2. The Manava Dharmasastra converted into a

metrical Smriti. The Manava Dh.S chosen for conversion on

accounts of myths regarding Manu Old and New parts of the work Sources of editions made by the editor of

metrical version Position of Bhrigu’s Samhita among the various

metrical recensions. Probable date of Bhrigu’s Samhita. 1. The commentaries of Manu and principles of

translation.

Textual rendering of the Manusmriti Title: Manusmriti as ‘Law codes of Manu’.

Chronology

Authorship and authenticity

Interpolations:- Buhler and even Patrick Olivelle believes that Chap.1 and 12 are later added revised interpolations.

Style:- a thematic coherence

Similarities b/w Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Egyptian

Commentaries

Inflicted misapprehension and violence in the process of translation Attempts to emphasize 1 large canonical text.Dayabagha and Mitakshara in Bengal. Ambiguous stand of privileging certain

particular topics.Contracts, inheritance, and property. Misleading the readers by terming Manu as a

Brahmin and Aryans as the addressee of the Manusmriti.

Distorting the native culture by perceiving Manusmriti as a law-book.

Translation of Manusmriti as a colonial project

Codifying the personal laws of Hindus:- to setup their legitimizing institutions like Law and Government.

“Laws must be congenial to the disposition and habits, and to all their ancient usages and established rules of conduct—must have the sanction of the actual revelation from heaven. The legislative of Britain is in compliance with the above maxim. Leaving the Indians in possession of their own laws (contracts and inheritances)-------> administration of justice and government will be conformable”—William Jones.

Theorizing fore front Hindus and Hinduism despite the absence of such notion in Vedas and Manusmriti.

Debunking the forced reading with renewed insights

Differentiating Dhrama from duties and rights. Rajiv Malhotra in his “Being different: An Indian Challenge to the West” gives the below 6 postulates of an Abrahamic theological framework.

Further, the writer enunciates that the commandments are derived from the above framework but whereas such commandments cannot be imagined in our culture.

Further Chap.2, verse-6 of Manusmriti articulates dharma as ‘smrithis, shrutis, words of elders & learned, atmasanthusti are the 4sources of dharma’.

Focusing on the vast Heterogeneity through Jati culture where its complexity couldn’t be comprehended by the colonizers. And so, Jati culture turned out to be a firewall against cultural imperialism and total proselytization.

As S.N.Balganghadara says,

So, we need to look at the different learning that is provided by the cultural space that we are born in to.

And our class readings have generated new insights in Manusmriti by reflecting upon Creation, Customs and Desires.

Then chapters 2, 3 , 11 and 12 gives us the four stages of living that is mentioned as below.

learning--brahmacharya, householder--grhasta, preparation-vanaprastha, renunciation--sanyasa.

Conclusion

In short the translation of Manusmriti by the Europeans have privileged the do’s and don’ts rather than focusing on the vast heterogeneous jati culture and the actional mode of living.

And so, Epistemological violence has been committed by such translators and orientalists.

By developing fresh insights from the composition of Manusmriti can significantly reduce the distortion of our culture created by the colonialism.

References1. “The Laws of Manu” by George Buhler.

Introduction. Pg.No.-1 to 142.2. “Manudharmasastra” by William Jones.

Preface. Pg.No.-1 to 36.3. “Being Different: An Indian Challenge to

the West” by Rajiv Malhotra; Preface.4. “Notes towards the study of Caste

system in India”. Pg.No.-1 to 15.

Thank You

Any Questions