Religious Laws and the
Constitution
The Manusmriti
(Laws of Manu) is an ancient Hindu legal and ethical text that is part of the Dharmaśāstra
tradition. Unlike the Bhagavad Gita, which is primarily a spiritual and
philosophical scripture, Manusmriti is a socio-legal text that deals
with laws, duties, caste regulations, and moral conduct. It is not considered a
"holy book" like the Vedas or Bhagavad Gita, but it has
historically influenced Hindu society, particularly in terms of social order
and law.
Position in Hindu Tradition
1. Manusmriti is one of the earliest texts
that outline Hindu law (Dharma), but it is not universally followed
today.
2. It was traditionally regarded as
a guideline for law and social conduct, but its relevance has been debated over
time.
3. Some of its controversial verses,
especially on caste and gender roles, have been criticized for being
discriminatory.
4. Hindu reformers, including social
activists and modern scholars, have challenged its authority, leading to its
decline in legal influence.
5. While it was used as a reference
for legal codes in ancient and medieval India, it is not a binding religious
scripture in contemporary Hindu practice.
10 Comments on Manusmriti by Prominent
Personalities
1. Mahatma Gandhi – "There are many things in
Manusmriti which are good and just, but there are other things which I
reject as being against the principles of justice."
2. B.R. Ambedkar – "The Manusmriti is
the root cause of social inequality in India. It must be burned." (He
famously burned a copy of the text in 1927 as a protest against caste
discrimination.)
3. Swami Vivekananda – "The Manusmriti
and other law books have been a great stumbling block in the path of progress.
Much of it is out of harmony with the spirit of the times."
4. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan – "Hindu lawgivers like
Manu tried to regulate society in a hierarchical manner, which may not be
acceptable in modern times."
5. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy – "The Manusmriti is
the symbol of Brahminical oppression. It must be opposed to achieve true
equality."
6. Bal Gangadhar Tilak – "While the Manusmriti
contains wisdom, it must be interpreted in light of changing social
conditions."
7. Rabindranath Tagore – "A text like Manusmriti
may have had its place in history, but it cannot dictate modern human values
and ethics."
8. Sri Aurobindo – "It is a historical
document of Hindu society, not a divine revelation."
9. Jawaharlal Nehru – "Hindu society must move
beyond the rigidities of texts like Manusmriti to achieve social justice
and democracy."
10.
Annie Besant –
"Some parts of Manusmriti contain noble ideals, but its caste laws
are incompatible with modern principles of equality."
Here are 10
more quotations on Manusmriti from prominent personalities:
1. Dayananda Saraswati (Arya Samaj founder)
"Manusmriti
contains many valuable teachings, but it has also been corrupted over time. The
original Manu’s wisdom has been misrepresented."
2. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak
"Manusmriti
is an ancient legal text, but we must accept only those parts that align with
justice and modern ideals."
3. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (First President of India)
"A
society must progress with time. Laws should be dynamic, not bound by outdated
texts like Manusmriti."
4. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
"Texts
like Manusmriti reflect the thinking of a certain period. They cannot and
should not dictate the future of a progressive society."
5. Swami Dayananda Saraswati (Modern Hindu Thinker)
"We
should not blindly follow Manusmriti; we must filter out what does not suit the
ideals of equality and justice."
6. Bhagat Singh
"Manusmriti
is a text that has been used to uphold discrimination. A just society must
reject such outdated notions."
7. Justice K. Chandru (Retired Madras HC Judge)
"The
Manusmriti, which is often quoted for its legal wisdom, is also a tool that has
historically justified inequality."
8. Dr. M. Karunanidhi (Former CM of Tamil Nadu)
"The
Manusmriti must be discarded if we wish to build a truly equal and just
society."
9. Justice B.R. Gavai (Supreme Court Judge)
"Manusmriti
has historical significance, but it must not be considered a foundation for
modern law or social ethics."
10. Ram Manohar Lohia (Socialist Leader)
"Any
text that divides people and denies dignity to sections of society must be
questioned and, if necessary, rejected."
M.S. Golwalkar
M.S.
Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghchalak (chief) of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), spoke about Manusmriti in a positive light,
emphasizing its historical role in shaping Hindu society. Here are some notable
statements attributed to him regarding Manusmriti:
M.S. Golwalkar's Quotes on Manusmriti
1.
“To this day, the Hindu society is following the
laws prescribed by Manu. Even today, his laws inspire us. Manu’s prescriptions
are universally relevant.” (Bunch of Thoughts)
2.
“Manu’s laws were the first and the greatest social
code that the world has ever known. They established a cohesive social order
that lasted for centuries.”
3.
“Manusmriti has always been held in high esteem as
the law book for the Hindu way of life. It laid the foundation for an
organized, stable, and disciplined society.”
4.
“In Hindu society, Dharma is supreme, and Manu is
the ancient lawgiver who codified Dharma into a set of rules that sustained our
civilization for millennia.”
5.
“Manu’s code represents the fundamental principles
of social order and justice, making it an essential part of our cultural
heritage.”
6.
“The British imposed their own legal system,
disregarding the wisdom of our ancient lawgivers like Manu. This was one of the
greatest injustices to our society.”
7.
“Manu’s laws did not aim at oppression but at
maintaining order and discipline in society. Those who criticize them must
understand their historical context.”
8.
“Unlike the changing legal systems of the West, Manusmriti
provided a framework that was stable and deeply rooted in Dharma.”
9.
“Western critics have misunderstood Manu’s laws.
They were not meant to suppress but to sustain a well-ordered social system.”
10. “The
greatness of Hindu society lies in its resilience, and much of that resilience
comes from the principles laid down by Manu.”
Golwalkar
saw Manusmriti as an essential foundation for Hindu social organization.
However, his views have been widely debated, especially in the context of
modern values of equality and social justice.
Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text,
has been a subject of discussion among various political leaders in India.
While there have been allegations and criticisms suggesting that some leaders
from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
advocate for Manusmriti to replace or influence the Indian Constitution,
direct quotations from current RSS and BJP leaders proposing such changes are
not readily available in the provided sources. However, the discourse includes:
1. Mohan Bhagwat (RSS Chief):
o
During
the consecration event of the proposed Grand Ram Temple at Ayodhya, RSS Chief
Mohan Bhagwat recited from Manusmriti, highlighting its significance in
Hindu tradition.
reddit.com
2. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
(Hindutva Ideologue):
o
Congress
leader Rahul Gandhi, quoting Savarkar, stated: "The worst thing about the
Constitution is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is the
scripture most worshipable after the Vedas of our Hindu nation… For centuries,
this book has codified our nation’s spiritual and divine march."
newindianexpress.com
3. Rahul Gandhi (Congress Leader):
o
Criticizing
the BJP, Rahul Gandhi remarked: "Congress follows the Indian Constitution;
BJP's book is Manusmriti."
Hindustan Times
4. Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress
Leader):
o
In the
Rajya Sabha, Kharge emphasized: "The Constitution gave us the right to
speak, not Manusmriti."
Economic Times
5. Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)]:
o
The JD(U)
alleged that the BJP aims to govern the country and its social system based on Manusmriti
rather than the Constitution framed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
While
these references indicate that Manusmriti has been a point of reference
in political debates, explicit proposals from current RSS and BJP leaders to
adopt Manusmriti as the Constitution of India are not documented in the
provided sources.
Sources
The
discussions around Manusmriti often emerge in political debates, with
opposition leaders expressing concerns about its ideological influence. For
example, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge highlighted the significance of
the Constitution over Manusmriti during a parliamentary debate, stating:
"It
is because of the Constitution the Finance Minister got the opportunity to
present the Budget, not because of Manusmriti. We have got the right to
speak because of the Constitution. Don't listen to Manuwadi."
Economic Times
Additionally,
historical critiques from RSS-affiliated publications have expressed
reservations about the Indian Constitution. The RSS mouthpiece, Organiser,
in its November 30, 1949 issue, remarked:
"The
worst about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bharatiya
about it."
m.thewire.in
Furthermore,
diaspora groups have voiced concerns about potential shifts towards Manusmriti-inspired
governance. In a joint statement, 22 South Asian diaspora organizations
expressed apprehension over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation in the
inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, interpreting it as:
"An
attempt to replace India's secular constitution and make the country a Hindu
rashtra (state)."
thenewsminute.com
However,
these perspectives do not constitute direct endorsements or proposals by BJP
MPs or ministers to adopt Manusmriti as the nation's constitution. It's
essential to distinguish between critiques, ideological debates, and official
policy positions. As of now, there is no verifiable evidence of BJP legislators
advocating for such a constitutional replacement.
Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged that while Manusmriti contains
some good teachings, parts of it contradict justice and fairness. The Indian
Constitution, based on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity,
directly opposes many principles of Manusmriti. Here are 10
principles from Manusmriti that conflict with modern constitutional
values:
1. Caste-Based Discrimination (Varna System) –
Against Equality
Verse: Manusmriti 1.91
"For
the prosperity of the world, He (Brahma) created Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas, and Shudras from His mouth, arms, thighs, and feet respectively."
- Why unjust? It establishes caste-based
hierarchy, contradicting Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the
Constitution.
-
2. Denial of Education to Shudras – Against Liberty
& Equality
Verse: Manusmriti 2.31
"A
Shudra who tries to learn the Vedas should be punished by pouring molten lead
into his ears."
- Why unjust? It denies education to
lower castes, opposing Article 21A (Right to Education).
-
3. Denial of Property Rights to Shudras – Against
Economic Justice
Verse: Manusmriti 10.129
"No
wealth must be given to a Shudra. Even if he is in distress, a king should
never grant him land or property."
- Why unjust? It contradicts Article
19(1)(f) (Right to Property, before it was repealed) and economic justice.
-
4. Women’s Subjugation – Against Gender Equality
Verse: Manusmriti 9.3
"A
woman must never be independent. In childhood, she depends on her father, in
youth on her husband, and after her husband's death on her sons."
- Why unjust? It violates Article 15 (No
discrimination based on gender) and Article 21 (Right to Life and
Dignity).
-
5. Justification of Child Marriage – Against Right
to Childhood
Verse: Manusmriti 9.94
"A
man of thirty may marry a girl of twelve, or a man of twenty-four a girl of
eight."
- Why unjust? It supports child marriage,
violating laws like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
-
6. Justification of Untouchability – Against
Fraternity
Verse: Manusmriti 10.51-56
"An
untouchable must live outside the village, use broken utensils, and wear the
clothes of the dead."
- Why unjust? It promotes untouchability,
abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution.
-
7. Extreme Punishment for Lower Castes – Against
Legal Justice
Verse: Manusmriti 8.270
"If
a Shudra insults a Brahmin, his tongue should be cut off."
- Why unjust? It promotes cruel
punishments, violating Article 21 (Right to Life).
-
8. No Divorce Rights for Women – Against Gender
Justice
Verse: Manusmriti 9.45
"A
woman cannot divorce her husband, even if he is wicked or neglectful."
- Why unjust? It contradicts Article 14
(Equality) and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
-
9. Women Cannot Perform Rituals – Against Religious
Freedom
Verse: Manusmriti 9.18
"A
woman has no right to perform sacrifices or religious rituals without her
husband."
- Why unjust? It contradicts Article 25
(Freedom of Religion) and promotes discrimination.
-
10. No Punishment for Brahmins – Against Equality
Before Law
Verse: Manusmriti 8.37
"A
Brahmin must never be executed, no matter how great his crime."
- Why unjust? It violates Article 14
(Equality before the law).
-
Conclusion:
Many
teachings of Manusmriti directly contradict justice, equality,
liberty, and fraternity, which are the foundation of modern India. Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar burned Manusmriti in 1927, rejecting its discriminatory laws.
The Indian Constitution upholds equal rights for all, irrespective of caste,
gender, or religion, making Manusmriti obsolete in the legal system.
Quran,
Hadid and Sharia List 10 hard principles from Quran, Hadid and Sharia that are
most against the principles of Indian Constitution like justice, liberty,
equality and Fraternity.
ChatGPT said:
Critically
analyzing any religious text requires a nuanced approach, as interpretations
vary widely across cultures, sects, and legal systems. The Indian
Constitution is built on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity,
ensuring that laws are secular and inclusive. Some principles in Islamic
jurisprudence (Sharia), as derived from the Quran and Hadith,
have been debated in the context of constitutional principles. Below are 10
points that some critics argue may conflict with modern constitutional
values, particularly in a secular and democratic system like India:
1. Apostasy (Leaving Islam) – Against Religious
Liberty
Source: Hadith (Sahih Bukhari 6922)
"Whoever
changes his religion, kill him."
- Why unjust? This contradicts Article
25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.
2. Gender-Based Inheritance – Against Equality
Source: Quran 4:11
"A
male shall have the equal of the portion of two females."
- Why unjust? It goes against Article
14 (Right to Equality), as modern laws promote equal inheritance for
men and women.
3. Testimony of Women in Court – Against Equal
Justice
Source: Quran 2:282
"Get
two witnesses from among your men. If two men are not available, then a man and
two women."
- Why unjust? This undermines Article
15 (No gender discrimination) and Article 14 (Equality before
the law).
4. Death for Blasphemy – Against Freedom of Speech
Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4361,
Sahih Bukhari 6922)
"Whoever
insults the Prophet, kill him."
- Why unjust? It contradicts Article
19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).
5. Triple Talaq – Against Women's Rights
Source: Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawood
2194, Ibn Majah 2018)
"A
man can divorce his wife by saying 'Talaq' three times."
- Why unjust? Violates Article 15
(Gender Equality). The Supreme Court of India banned Triple Talaq in 2019.
6. Forced Veiling (Hijab/Niqab) – Against
Individual Liberty
Source: Quran 24:31
"Tell
the believing women to lower their gaze and draw their veils over their
bosoms."
- Why unjust? Enforced veiling
contradicts Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty).
7. Polygamy for Men – Against Gender Equality
Source: Quran 4:3
"Marry
women of your choice, two, three, or four."
- Why unjust? Indian laws prohibit
polygamy for Hindus but allow it for Muslims, violating Article 14
(Equality).
8. Stoning for Adultery – Against Human Rights
Source: Hadith (Sahih Muslim 1690,
Abu Dawood 4413)
"The
adulterer must be stoned to death."
- Why unjust? It violates Article 21
(Right to Life and Dignity).
9. Dhimmi System (Non-Muslim Tax) – Against
Secularism
Source: Quran 9:29
"Fight
those who do not believe in Allah... until they pay the Jizya tax with willing
submission."
- Why unjust? Imposing a tax on religious
minorities contradicts Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15
(No Discrimination).
10. LGBTQ+ Criminalization – Against Individual
Rights
Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4462,
Tirmidhi 1456)
"If
you find anyone committing the act of the people of Lot, execute both."
- Why unjust? This contradicts Article
21 (Right to Life and Privacy). The Supreme Court of India
decriminalized homosexuality in 2018.
Conclusion
Many of
these principles from Sharia law have been modified, reinterpreted,
or abolished in modern Muslim-majority countries. India's secular
democracy ensures that personal laws (like Muslim Personal Law) are
subject to constitutional review. The Indian Constitution guarantees equal
rights for all, making many of these medieval laws incompatible with
modern justice and human rights.
Here are 10
more principles from Sharia, the Quran, and Hadith
that conflict with the core values of the Indian Constitution—justice,
liberty, equality, and fraternity. These principles have been debated in
the context of modern democracy and secular governance.
11. Beating Wives – Against Gender Equality
Source: Quran 4:34
"Men
are in charge of women... As for those from whom you fear disobedience,
admonish them, forsake them in bed, and strike them."
- Why unjust? Encouraging domestic
violence contradicts Article 15 (No gender discrimination) and Article
21 (Right to dignity).
12. No Marriage Without a Guardian (Wali) for Women
– Against Personal Liberty
Source: Hadith (Tirmidhi 1101, Abu
Dawood 2085)
"A
woman may not marry herself off; a guardian must do it for her."
- Why unjust? Violates Article 21
(Right to personal liberty) and Article 16 (Right to marriage
choice).
13. Forced Conversion – Against Religious Freedom
Source: Hadith (Sahih Muslim 6903,
Abu Dawood 2683)
"The
Prophet said: I have been commanded to fight until they testify that there is
no god but Allah."
- Why unjust? Violates Article 25
(Freedom of Religion) and Article 14 (Equality).
14. Slavery and Concubinage – Against Human Dignity
Source: Quran 33:50
"Prophet,
you may have as many wives as you like and those whom your right hand
possesses."
- Why unjust? Allows slavery and concubinage,
violating Article 23 (Prohibition of human trafficking).
15. Honor Killing for Family’s ‘Honor’ – Against
Right to Life
Source: Hadith (Abu Dawood 4353, Ibn
Majah 2565)
"If
a man finds his wife committing adultery, he may kill her without
punishment."
- Why unjust? Encourages honor
killings, violating Article 21 (Right to Life).
16. Non-Muslims as Inferior Citizens – Against
Fraternity & Secularism
Source: Quran 3:110-112
"You
(Muslims) are the best of people... while the disbelievers are the worst of
creatures."
- Why unjust? Promotes religious
supremacy, contradicting Article 14 (Equality) and Article
15 (No discrimination).
17. Child Marriage for Girls – Against Protection
of Minors
Source: Hadith (Sahih Bukhari 5133,
Muslim 1422)
"The
Prophet married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she
was nine."
- Why unjust? Supports child marriage,
violating POCSO Act and Article 21 (Right to dignity).
18. No Divorce Rights for Women Without Husband’s
Permission – Against Gender Equality
Source: Hadith (Tirmidhi 1181, Ibn
Majah 2055)
"A
woman may not seek divorce except in cases of extreme hardship, with the
husband's approval."
- Why unjust? Discriminates against
women, violating Article 14 and Article 15.
19. Discrimination in Blood Money (Diyya) – Against
Equal Justice
Source: Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawood
4530)
"The
blood money for a woman is half that of a man, and for a non-Muslim, it is even
lower."
- Why unjust? Violates Article 14
(Equality before law).
20. Jihad Against Non-Muslims – Against Peace &
Fraternity
Source: Quran 9:5
"When
the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find
them."
- Why unjust? Encourages violence,
contradicting Article 51 (Promotion of international peace and
harmony).
Conclusion:
Many Sharia-based
laws contradict Indian constitutional values like gender
equality, freedom of speech, secularism, and the right to life. While
modern Muslim societies interpret Islamic teachings in different ways, India's
secular framework ensures that all religions follow constitutional
principles rather than outdated religious laws.
Would you
like an analysis of how different Muslim-majority countries have reformed such
laws?
The Indian
Constitution is based on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity,
ensuring that all citizens are treated equally regardless of religion, caste,
or gender. While Christian personal laws in India have evolved over time, some
principles from the Bible and historical Christian laws may conflict
with modern constitutional values. Here are 10 principles from Biblical
teachings and Christian personal laws that could be seen as problematic
from a constitutional perspective:
1. Death Penalty for Blasphemy – Against Freedom of
Speech
Source: Leviticus 24:16
"Anyone
who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death; the entire assembly
must stone them."
- Why unjust? This contradicts Article
19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).
2. Subjugation of Women – Against Gender Equality
Source: 1 Timothy 2:12
"I
do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be
quiet."
- Why unjust? It violates Article 14
(Equality) and Article 15 (No discrimination based on gender).
3. Wives Must Obey Husbands – Against Personal
Liberty
Source: Ephesians 5:22-24
"Wives,
submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband
is the head of the wife."
- Why unjust? It contradicts Article
21 (Right to dignity and personal liberty).
4. Death for Homosexuality – Against LGBTQ+ Rights
Source: Leviticus 20:13
"If
a man has sexual relations with another man, both of them have done what is
detestable. They are to be put to death."
- Why unjust? It opposes Article 21
(Right to Life) and LGBTQ+ rights.
5. Child Marriage Allowed – Against Protection of
Minors
Source: Numbers 31:17-18
"Now
kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for
yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
- Why unjust? This could be used to
justify child marriage, violating Article 21 and the POCSO
Act.
6. Slavery and Bondage Allowed – Against Human
Rights
Source: Exodus 21:2-6
"If
you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But if he does not
want to leave, his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve
for life."
- Why unjust? It violates Article 23
(Prohibition of forced labor and human trafficking).
7. Adultery Punishable by Death – Against Right to
Life
Source: John 8:3-7, Deuteronomy 22:22
"If
a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both must die."
- Why unjust? Encouraging capital
punishment for adultery contradicts Article 21.
8. No Divorce Except for Adultery – Against Right
to Marriage Choice
Source: Matthew 5:32
"Anyone
who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of
adultery."
- Why unjust? It restricts divorce
rights, violating Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21.
9. Women Cannot Hold Religious Leadership – Against
Gender Equality
Source: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
"Women
should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must
be in submission."
- Why unjust? It promotes gender
discrimination, violating Articles 14 & 15.
10. Religious Supremacy – Against Secularism &
Fraternity
Source: John 14:6
"I
am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me."
- Why unjust? It excludes
non-Christians, contradicting Article 25 (Freedom of Religion)
and Article 51 (Promotion of international peace and harmony).
Conclusion:
Many Biblical
principles conflict with modern human rights and constitutional values.
However, Christianity has evolved, and most Christian-majority nations
have reformed laws to align with democracy and equality. In
India, Christian personal laws (such as divorce laws) have been challenged
and reformed to be more inclusive.
Would you
like a comparison of how different Christian-majority countries have adapted
their religious laws?
Buddhism, as a philosophical and ethical system, is
generally known for its non-violence, compassion, and inclusivity,
making it one of the least controversial traditions when it comes to conflicts
with modern constitutional principles. However, in historical and doctrinal
contexts, certain Buddhist teachings and practices—especially as
interpreted in various Buddhist societies—have been criticized for being rigid,
hierarchical, or discriminatory. Below are 10 aspects of Buddhist
teachings or historical Buddhist practices that could be seen as
conflicting with Indian constitutional values like justice, liberty,
equality, and fraternity:
1. Gender Inequality in Monastic Rules – Against
Gender Equality
Source: Vinaya Pitaka (Bhikkhuni
Patimokkha, Eight Garudhammas)
"A
fully ordained nun must bow to even the most junior monk."
- Why unjust? The Bhikkhuni Sangha
(female monastic order) is treated as inferior to the Bhikkhu
Sangha (male monastic order), violating Articles 14 & 15
(Gender Equality).
2. Caste Distinctions in Early Buddhism – Against
Social Equality
Source: Sutta Nipata 3.9 (Vasala
Sutta)
"Though
I say that all castes can attain enlightenment, some are born with greater
merit than others."
- Why unjust? Though Buddhism rejects
caste-based oppression, some interpretations emphasize karma-based
hierarchy, conflicting with Article 15 (No discrimination based
on birth).
3. Karma-Based Justification for Suffering –
Against Social Justice
Source: Majjhima Nikaya 135
(Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta)
"People
are born poor, sick, or disabled due to their past karma."
- Why unjust? Suggesting that poverty,
disability, or suffering is a result of past actions
contradicts Article 21 (Right to Dignity) and social justice
principles.
4. Denial of Individual Free Will – Against Liberty
Source: Samyutta Nikaya 22.59
"There
is no permanent self; all is dependent origination."
- Why unjust? The rejection of personal
autonomy may contradict the constitutional focus on individual
rights under Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty).
5. Extreme Asceticism – Against Right to Health
& Life
Source: Majjhima Nikaya 36 (The Great
Renunciation)
"Buddha
practiced extreme fasting until he nearly died, to gain enlightenment."
- Why unjust? Encouraging severe
self-denial can contradict Article 21 (Right to Life) and public
health principles.
6. Monasticism Over Family Life – Against
Fraternity & Social Responsibility
Source: Digha Nikaya 16
(Mahaparinibbana Sutta)
"A
householder's life is full of suffering; the path to enlightenment is in
renunciation."
- Why unjust? This devalues family and
societal roles, which contradicts Article 39 (Protection of
family and children).
7. Non-Resistance to Injustice – Against Social
Activism & Justice
Source: Dhammapada 5:201
"Hatred
does not cease by hatred, but only by love."
- Why unjust? While noble, this doctrine
can lead to passivity in the face of oppression, contradicting Article
32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies).
8. Justification for Monastic Wealth &
Hierarchy – Against Economic Equality
Source: Vinaya Pitaka
"The
laity should give generously to the monks for merit."
- Why unjust? The monastic system
accumulated wealth and power in some Buddhist societies, which can be
seen as contradicting Article 39 (Equitable distribution of
resources).
9. Prohibition on Women Becoming Buddhas – Against
Gender Equality
Source: Therigatha, Anguttara Nikaya
1.14
"A
woman cannot become a Buddha, only a Bodhisattva."
- Why unjust? This denies women the
highest spiritual role, conflicting with Articles 14 & 15
(Gender Equality).
10. Silence on Political Participation – Against
Democratic Rights
Source: Majjhima Nikaya 58
"The
Buddha remained silent on governance, focusing only on individual
enlightenment."
- Why unjust? Buddhism does not
explicitly promote democracy, which some critics argue leaves room for
authoritarian rule, contradicting Articles 19 & 21 (Democratic
Rights).
Conclusion:
Buddhism
is one of the least oppressive religions in terms of conflicting with
constitutional values. However, certain monastic rules, gender hierarchies,
karma-based justifications, and passive resistance to injustice may
contradict modern democratic principles. While Buddhist societies have
reformed, historical Buddhist laws have sometimes been used to justify
social hierarchies.
Buddhist Nations and Their Legal Evolution:
Democracy & Human Rights
Buddhism,
unlike other religions, does not explicitly lay down legal systems. However, in
Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand, Buddhist principles have historically
influenced governance, sometimes clashing with modern democratic and human
rights values. Below is an analysis of how these countries have modified
their laws to align (or conflict) with democracy and human rights.
1. Sri Lanka: From Buddhist Influence to
Ethno-Religious Nationalism
Buddhism in Law & Politics:
- Sri Lanka’s Constitution
(Article 9)
gives Buddhism the “foremost place”, though it guarantees religious
freedom for all.
- Sinhala Buddhist nationalism has influenced policies,
sometimes leading to discrimination against minorities (Tamils,
Muslims, and Christians).
- Buddhist clergy (monks) play
a role in politics, influencing laws related to culture, identity, and governance.
Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:
✅ Legal
Reforms:
- LGBTQ+ Rights: In recent years, there have
been efforts to decriminalize same-sex relationships, though they
remain technically illegal under Section 365 of the Penal Code (a
colonial-era law).
- War Crimes & Justice: After the civil war
(1983–2009), the Sri Lankan government faced pressure to ensure justice
for Tamil minorities.
Challenges:
- Militarization &
Buddhist Extremism: Some monastic groups (like Bodu Bala Sena) have pushed anti-Muslim
and anti-Christian laws.
- Ethnic Discrimination: Land rights and Tamil
autonomy remain key issues.
2. Myanmar: Buddhist Rule & Military Dictatorship
Buddhism in Law & Politics:
- Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution
(Article 361)
recognizes Buddhism as the state religion, influencing governance
and education.
- Buddhist nationalist groups
(like Ma Ba Tha)
have supported laws against religious minorities, particularly Rohingya
Muslims.
- The military junta
has used Buddhism to justify its rule, claiming to be the "protector
of the faith."
Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:
✅ Legal
Reforms:
- Political Reforms
(2011–2015):
Brief democratic opening under Aung San Suu Kyi, though later reversed by
a military coup in 2021.
- Press Freedoms: Some improvements were made
in media laws (before 2021) allowing criticism of the government.
Challenges:
- Rohingya Genocide (2017): The government refused to
grant citizenship rights to Rohingya Muslims, violating
international human rights laws.
- Religious Conversion Laws: In 2015, laws were passed
requiring government approval for religious conversions and interfaith
marriages, restricting religious freedom.
- Military Rule &
Suppression of Protesters (Post-2021): The military coup led to widespread
arrests of activists and journalists.
3. Thailand: A Buddhist Monarchy with Controlled
Democracy
Buddhism in Law & Politics:
- Thailand’s Constitution
(Article 67)
designates Buddhism as the country’s official religion, with the
King as its defender.
- The Sangha (Buddhist
Monastic Order) plays a role in policymaking, though monks are officially
banned from voting or running for office.
Legal Conflicts with Democracy & Human Rights:
✅ Legal
Reforms:
- Gender & LGBTQ+ Rights: Thailand has made progress,
with same-sex civil partnerships recognized in 2022, though full
marriage equality is still debated.
- Freedom of Religion: Unlike Sri Lanka and
Myanmar, Thailand does not enforce religious conversion laws.
❌ Challenges:
- Lèse Majesté Law (Article
112):
Criticizing the monarchy (even slightly) can lead to long prison
sentences, suppressing freedom of speech.
- Military Influence in
Politics: The
2014 coup resulted in military-backed governments, restricting
democratic reforms.
Comparative Overview of Buddhist Nations &
Legal Evolution
|
Aspect
|
Sri Lanka
|
Myanmar
|
Thailand
|
|
Official Religion
|
Buddhism
has foremost place (Article 9)
|
Buddhism
is state religion (Article 361)
|
Buddhism
is protected by the King (Article 67)
|
|
Religious Freedom
|
Technically guaranteed, but minorities face discrimination
|
Restricted;
Muslim Rohingya denied citizenship
|
More open, but
Buddhism is favored
|
|
Role of Monks in Politics
|
Strong political influence (monks support parties)
|
Buddhist nationalist groups support government
|
Monks officially banned from politics
|
|
Freedom of Speech
|
Limited;
criticism of Buddhist nationalism is suppressed
|
Highly restricted under military rule
|
Lèse majesté law (royal criticism) restricts speech
|
|
Women’s Rights
|
Improving,
but Buddhist laws favor men
|
Gender discrimination in law
|
Better gender equality
|
|
LGBTQ+ Rights
|
Still criminalized, but debates for reform
|
Illegal and punished
harshly
|
Civil partnerships allowed (2022)
|
|
Democracy
|
Democracy exists, but military & Buddhist groups influence politics
|
Military dictatorship (since 2021 coup)
|
Military-backed democracy
|
|
Violence Against Minorities
|
Targeted attacks on Tamils & Muslims
|
Rohingya genocide (2017)
|
No major religious violence
|
Conclusion: Buddhism, Law & Human Rights in the
Modern Era
- Thailand has been the most
progressive in adapting its laws to modern democracy.
- Sri Lanka has struggled with ethno-religious
nationalism, restricting minority rights.
- Myanmar remains the most
oppressive, with genocide, military rule, and religious persecution.
Would you
like a deeper analysis of how Buddhist principles were historically used to
support or resist authoritarianism?
