Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, December 2002

Major. H. Subramanian holds degrees in science and telecommunications. He served in the Indian Army for twenty two years and another ten years in industry in top management positions. He has studied different religions (i.e. the principal living religions) of the world in depth and is actively engaged in promoting 'a new religious consciousness' in India and abroad through lectures and articles.

Hinduism, being the oldest among the principal living religions of the world, naturally has voluminous scriptures in its repertoire. Most of these are cognitive, but they include some revelatory ones as well. They are broadly grouped under the heads Sruti, Smriti, Itihasa-Puranas and Sastras. While Srutis, as revealed texts, occupy the highest position of authority, the Smritis occupy the next important and authoritative position in scriptural hierarchy. In the past, the Smritis played a very prominent role in the organization and conduct of the Aryan society, and made positive contributions for its stability and progress. But, over the millennia, they stagnated. Due to incorrect interpretation and faulty implementation of its provisions, they became instrumental in alienating a large section of the society and also became an impediment to its progress. So, in course of time, unable to meet the new demands of the society with changed circumstances, they have become obsolete and are going into oblivion. While the orthodox and apologetic Hindu minds are of the view that the Smritis are sacred and should be revived, the opinion among modern religious thinkers and sociologists is divided. While some are of the view that the Smritis should be discarded as they are totally irrelevant to modern times, there are yet others, particularly of the postmodern school, who think that modern society is urgently in need of new Smritis to meet its present requirements and these should be created at the earliest.

The Sanskrit word 'Smriti' has wide meanings and is used in varied connotations. Etymologically the word 'Smriti' means remembrance, recollection or memory. It also denoted a body of traditional or memorial law, civil or religious, and hence the texts containing the rule of law. 'Traditionally, the word Smriti is used in two senses. In a broader sense, it is applied to all ancient orthodox non-Vedic works such as the Vedangas, the Srauta, Grihya and Dharma sutras, to Smritis of Manu, Yajnavalkya and others, and even to Mahabharata. But strictly, in a narrower sense, Smritis are synonymous with Dharmasastras.'¹ As per Manu, 'Vedas are to be known as Sruti and Dharmasastras as Smriti.'² 'The Vedas, though the ultimate source of dharma, are not formal treatise on dharma nor do they profess to be such. They contain only disconnected statements or pronouncements on dharma. It is to Smritis that one has to turn to for a formal and concerted treatment of the topic of dharma.'³ Why dharma? Because, it is dharma which postulates what one should do and should not do--the dos' and don'ts--the guidance for actions and abstentions. For what purpose? 'To secure worldly joys in this life and supreme happiness in the next.'⁴ So, all the rules and regulations laid down in the different Smritis are only to this ultimate end.

There is a large number of Smritis; Dr. P.V. Kane lists nearly one hundred of them in his monumental work 'History of Dharma-sastras'. Among the traditional Smritis, Manu Smriti is the highest authority, followed by those of Yajnavalkya and Apasthamba. They were created by their authors with the laudable motive of regulating the Aryan society in all matters, civil, religious and moral. Their aim was to ensure security and welfare of every member of the society. For them, truth was eternal dharma, virtue its manifestation, and morals the distinguishing feature of the people following the dharmic path.

The Smritis in the past were drawn up for the then Aryan society to meet the requirements of that age. Much water has flown under the bridge since then. The society has undergone revolutionary changes in the millennia that have passed--concepts, way of life and requirements--everything has changed. The distinction between law and religion is one that does not exist in classical Hindu thought. Instead, both law and religion were part of the single concept known as dharma. 'The Smritis laid great emphasis on the duties of every man as a member of the whole Aryan society and as a member of a particular class or caste to which he belonged--but very little emphasis on the privileges of men.'⁵ Hence many of the provisions in these Smritis written for that age are not relevant for the present time. Also, the custodians of the Smritis, unfortunately, failed to incorporate the required changes in them necessitated by changed circumstances. For example, in Manu Smriti, though it stipulates division of the society on caste basis, the same was not absolute and there were clear provisions for vertical mobility.⁶ But unfortunately, caste by birth became an iron clad rule over a period of time and this marginalized a large section of the population. Further, in the absence of transparency and accountability, there is ample evidence or instances of interpolation of clauses in the original texts to suit vested interests. Lastly, due to their large number and wide variations in their provisions on different issues, people followed only what was convenient to them and this greatly undermined their credibility.

But, in all fairness to the custodians of the Smritis, it should be realized that they helped to preserve Hindu culture and literature in the midst of alien cultures and in spite of begotten alien domination. Living as they did in the midst of aggressive and violently unsympathetic cultures and rulers, and possessing no powers themselves or over rulers who sympathized with their ideals, they were driven more and more to revolve within their own narrow grooves. Hence they could not see far in order to regulate society in a free and buoyant spirit. But, the role they played under trying circumstances to preserve Hindu culture and literature deserve admiration and even reverence.⁷

Acquisition of material wealth and fulfilment of sensual desires are certainly necessary for the happiness of the individual and progress of the society. Desire for these two are the principal stimulants for human activity, for achieving comforts and thereby happiness of the individual, the members of his family and the society as well. But, this desire and the means of achieving it should not be contrary to principles of righteousness. If desires are not properly controlled and channeled in the right direction, they will create discord in the individual and disharmony in the society and even lead ultimately to its destruction. This control is exercised through institutions during greater part of human development. Only in the case of well-developed and highly evolved individuals can it be voluntary, as in them it becomes an in-built mechanism, and they are a negligible minority. The three institutions, which exercised control hitherto on this aspect of human development, are the family, religion and state, in that order. First, the parents and elders of the family helped the individual's growth by inculcating virtues, curbing evil tendencies, if any, and apprising him of the 'dos' and don'ts' as to make him fit to perform his role in the society. Thereafter, on matters having wider implications, the religious institutions provided the necessary guidance and also exercised necessary control. Later, the King or the state came into play. The law of the land and fear of punishment kept man on the right path. The Smritis provided to these institutions the necessary norms for guidance and authority to control. Unfortunately, in the present day, all the three institutions are in disorder and hence have ceased to be effective due to various reasons. Hence there certainly is an urgent need for creating new Smritis for making these institutions effective once again.

Before going in for a new Smriti, an appraisal of the conditions prevailing in the present day is essential. During the latter half of the previous millennia and particularly the last two centuries, the world has undergone revolutionary changes. Concepts, way of life, requirements--everything has changed. But, unfortunately, religions which are supposed to cater to human requirements failed to keep pace with these changes. Hence people got disillusioned with them and looked to alternative philosophies like atheism, communism, scientific materialism, etc. However, from experience gained, particularly during the latter half of the previous century, the world has realized that religion is an indispensable requirement for humanity. Further, it has dawned on the enlightened cross section of the public that religion is not just a set of theological affirmations or dogmas and rituals, but a matter concerning the spirit and consciousness--a 'spiritual consciousness'. Governments too, that hitherto clamoured for absolute power and total separation of religion and the state, have realized that religion is an indispensable component of the society and an essential requirement for their efficient functioning. They certainly can enact laws and award punishments, but cannot make the punishment effective, if the same is not backed by public condemnation. Similarly, they can provide amenities and comforts to its people, but cannot ensure happiness, prosperity or progress. The latter can be provided only by religion--by its permanent component, namely ethics and the moral imperative it instills in a person. This 'ought consciousness'--a passion to do only what is right and refrain from doing what is not right is known in our culture as 'dharma'. So, it is only the rules and regulations contained in or have the backing of the dharmashâstras (i.e. law books with scriptural backing) that will be effective in guaranteeing stability and progress to the community; hence the imperative for Smritis even in this modern age!

Secondly, religious pluralism is another feature of the modern age. It is defined as a condition where persons professing different faiths live as a community and no single religion enjoys any special rights or privileges. Unfortunately, in our country, secularism as a state policy, misinterpreted by the people in power and misunderstood by the public, has been the cause of several problems in the society and much social unrest. It is only in our days that we have come face to face with pluralism in its sharper form, namely, persons of diverse religious denominations and ideologies claiming not just the same rights but something higher under the label of minorities. In such an environment, any Smriti to be acceptable to persons of different religious denominations should be based on 'religion in general' and not on any particular religion.

Humanity as yet, does not have a 'world religion' acceptable to all nor has it evolved sufficiently to accept a 'world religion'. But, thoughts towards a world religion mooted by Swami Vivekananda at the dawn of the twentieth century are very much alive and are receiving much attention from religious thinkers around the world, though not much visible in the media or seen as headlines in newspapers and magazines. Evolution of a world religion is an inevitable but natural process; and nature prepares everything in secrecy and in good time. A world religion is bound to arise. That religion will be the logical outcome of the thinking minds or the result of the quest of the seekers of religion the world over. It will be the deepest expression of the noblest ideal in man, will strengthen his moral will, satisfy the demands of his reason and at the same time bring comfort and solace to a yearning soul. It will be 'truth in general' and not a relative truth and it will not be culturally bound. It will be based on a spiritual philosophy 'conceived as a passion for righteousness as a "cosmic demand".'⁸ We may tentatively call this world religion 'Neo-Vedanta'.

Swami Vivekananda had prophesied all these in his writings a century ago. Giving a clarion call for the creation of a new Smriti, he had indicated its salient features, that it will be written by the rishis of the future and has given hints as to what it should or will contain.⁹ Had he lived longer, may be, he would have written the Smriti himself. In the century that has lapsed, the world has undergone enormous changes, but the need for a new Smriti has become only greater. Now, the least we can do is to compile the new Smriti based on the 'directive principles' he had given in his writings. A Smriti so complied will be acceptable not only to persons of other religious denominations within India but throughout the world. That would be an appropriate tribute the people of this land can pay to that great soul for the contribution and sacrifices he has made for the awakening of this nation. Yes; we owe this to posterity!

1. History of Dharmasastra-Dr. P.V. Kane, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. 1940. Vol. I. Page.131. (Hereafter 'Kane')
2. 'Srutishu vedo vijneyo dharmashâstram to vai smriti'-MS II.10 - Manu Smriti (Sanskrit) Acharya Jagadishlal Sastri. Motilal Banarsidas, New Delhi-110007. (Hereafter, 'M.S.')
3. Kane, Vol I. Page 131
4. 'Sukhabyudayikam chaiva naisreyasikam eva cha'-MS.XII.88
5. Kane, Vol I, Page 466-67
6. See M.S. II.157-158
7. Kane, Vol I, Page 466-67
8. W.E. Hocking. "Living Religions and a World Faith"-Macmillan Co. New York 1940. Page 12
9. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Kolkata Advaita Ashrama, 1985, Vol III.174-75